“There is no evidence that child protection systems get to the right children, or that they are having any effect on the incidence of maltreatment.” This is the claim of Michael Little, director of the Social Research Unit, and colleagues in a forthcoming review of the state of child protection in the UK. They say that the “heart” has shaped social policy, and argue for listening to the “head” instead.

Evidence on the worrying trends in the mental well-being of UK children suggests that even the most complex problems will sometimes be relieved by deceptively simple interventions.

In a recent blog published by the London Review of Books, contributor Laura Jones described the numerous proposals put forward to the UK government to fund early intervention programmes and the challenges they may bring.

Microtargeting, nicheing – even the average neighborhood supermarket is cleverly aware of the demands of the “splintering” society. So should prevention programs be more like shopping carts when it comes to adapting standard models to meet consumer needs?

Is a sudden rise in UK care proceedings more evidence of the damage being done to the cause of prevention and child protection in the politically-manipulated aftermath of the Baby Peter case?

Now that the UK’s destiny is in the hands of a radically egalitarian government led by two privileged products of the English public schools, might it be the perfect moment to subject the education system to radical social experiment?

From burrowing in the small print of US Health Care Reform bill, commentators emerge with a shot in the arm for comparative effectiveness research, a tangle of questions about the future of randomized controlled trials – and ammunition for the cost-benefit analyst.

US researchers Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase recruit an old testament prophet, a civil rights activist and the founder of the Chicago Leadership Institute to the good cause of better implementation science.

The failure of the US Head Start program to produce evidence of lasting benefit is no reason for despair, say Washington researchers. It strengthens the case for making the search for what works more specific and more rigorous.

Newspaper stories about the continuing decline in the emotional well-being and self confidence of UK schoolchildren point to the difficulty of collecting comparable data from the classroom year on year.

Ideas about character have been central to US developmental scientist Richard Lerner’s concept of positive youth development. Is “character education” now likely to find its way on to the policy agenda of a new UK government?

“Political orthodoxies and dogmas are hiding behind what ‘science says…’ The science might tell you the facts on climate change; it doesn’t mean that my local council can go round charging me for not recycling my rubbish.” The director of the UK Institute of Ideas highlights a modern confusion between evidence and justification.