Baroness Armstrong welcomed as new Trustee of Foundations

Baroness Armstrong welcomed as new Trustee of Foundations

Hilary Armstrong has been welcomed as a new Trustee of Foundations, the national What Works Centre for Children & Families.

Formerly the MP for North West Durham, Baroness Armstrong brings with her decades of experience, having served on the opposition frontbench and in the Cabinet of previous administrations, including as Minister for Local Government, Social Exclusion Minister, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.  

Her early work as a practicing social worker, and then lecturer in youth work, provides her with an invaluable insight into the realities of children and family policy, and local practice on the ground. 

She has continued to champion the voices of vulnerable children and families since joining the House of Lords in 2010, including as an ambassador for Action for Children, as chair of the Public Services Committee, and through her work leading the 2019 National Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Multiple Disadvantage. 

Commenting on her appointment, Baroness Armstrong said: 

“I’m delighted to join Foundations to support its mission to ensure that children and families have the foundational relationships they need to thrive. I’m particularly looking forward to joining with Foundations to promote early intervention for children and families and to champion their call for a national vision for evidence-based parenting support to improve children’s life chances.”  

Sam White, Chair of Foundations, said: 

“I’m delighted that Hilary is joining the Foundations’ Board, where her knowledge of children and families policy, and of local government, will be invaluable. Her experience as a national policymaker will be a huge asset as the organisation takes forward its mission to champion actionable evidence to help improve outcomes for vulnerable children and families.” 

Dr Jo Casebourne, chief executive of Foundations, added: 

“In the year ahead, Foundations will be focused on ensuring that prevention and early intervention are central to the Government’s agenda for children and families in children’s social care, in parenting and family support, and in approaches to domestic abuse. Hilary is a passionate and powerful advocate for vulnerable children and families, and I am very much looking forward to working with her and the rest of the Foundations’ Board.” 

SHARE

Related News

Read our latest news and blogs

News

April 22, 2025

Coming soon: New, updated Foundations Guidebook

Blog

April 8, 2025

Building the evidence on effective mentoring and befriending support for care-experienced children and young people

Cost ratings:

This rating is based on information that programme providers have supplied about the components and requirements of their programme. Based on this information, EIF rates programmes on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the least resource-intensive programmes and 5 the most resource-intensive. 

1: A rating of 1 indicates that a programmes has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

2: A rating of 2 indicates that a programme has a medium-low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

3: A rating of 3 indicates that a programme has a medium cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

4: A rating of 4 indicates that a programme has a medium-high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

5: A rating of 5 indicates that a programme has a high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

The evidence ratings distinguish five levels of strength of evidence. This is not a rating of the scale of impact but of the degree to which a programme has been shown to have a positive, causal impact on specific child outcomes.

Level 2: Recognises programmes with preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but where an assumption of causal impact cannot be drawn.

Level 2+: The programme will have observed a significant positive child outcome in an evaluation meeting all of the criteria for a level 2 evaluation, but also involving a treatment and comparison group. There is baseline equivalence between the treatment and comparison‐group participants on key demographic variables of interest to the study and baseline measures of outcomes (when feasible).

Level 3: Recognises programmes with evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous evaluation – that is, where a judgment about causality can be made.

Level 3+: The programme will have obtained evidence of a significant positive child outcome through an efficacy study, but may also have additional consistent positive evidence from other evaluations (occurring under ideal circumstances or real world settings) that do not meet this criteria, thus keeping it from receiving an assessment of 4 or higher.

Level 4: Recognises programmes with evidence of a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations. At least one of these studies must have evidence of improving a child outcome lasting a year or longer.