‘Check if you are eligible for childcare funding’ helps users understand what childcare support may be available to them. However, not everyone who uses the service will be eligible for support because they do not meet the eligibility criteria.
As we developed the results pages, we needed to create designs that work for these users.
What we already knew
Earlier rounds of research showed that many parents have limited knowledge of the childcare support available across government. Users were often unfamiliar with:
- the different childcare schemes available
- how eligibility is determined
- when different schemes can be combined and when they cannot
- when support begins and ends
We also knew that eligibility rules can be difficult to understand because outcomes depend on multiple factors including employment status, household circumstances, benefits, earnings and the child’s age.
However, while previous work had focused on helping users understand support they may be entitled to, we had spent less time understanding how users interpret and respond to negative outcomes.
The design problem
When a user is told they may be eligible for support, the next steps are often relatively clear.
A negative outcome creates a more complex design problem.
Users may ask:
- why am I not eligible?
- which answer affected the outcome?
- will I become eligible in the future?
- can I do anything to change this?
- have I answered something incorrectly?
- is there other support available?
- does existing support or benefits I get impact my eligibility?
Providing too little information risks users losing confidence in the result.
Providing too much detail might risk overwhelming users with policy information that may be difficult to understand.
We therefore needed to understand how much explanation users needed to trust a negative outcome without requiring them to understand the full policy logic behind it.
We also wanted to understand whether users needed more than a simple eligibility decision.
What we considered
Showing only the eligibility outcome
One option would be to provide a simple outcome and direct users elsewhere for further information.
This would reduce the amount of information presented on the page and keep the results experience concise.
However, users may struggle to understand why they received the outcome. A lack of explanation could reduce confidence in the result and increase the likelihood of users seeking help elsewhere.
Explaining the policy rules in detail
Alternatively, we could explain the specific policy criteria behind each outcome.
This could increase transparency and help some users understand how the decision was reached.
However, childcare support rules are often complex. Presenting large amounts of policy information risks increasing cognitive load and making the results harder to understand. It would also introduce ongoing maintenance challenges as eligibility rules change.
Providing explanation alongside next steps
A third approach was to explain enough about the outcome to provide confidence while also helping users understand what they could do next.
This approach focused on:
- explaining why support was unavailable
- highlighting circumstances that could affect future eligibility
- signposting users to additional guidance
- directing users towards alternative support routes
Ahead of research on the results page, we wanted to understand whether this balance would meet user needs.
What we designed
For research, we created a results page for users who were not currently eligible for any of the childcare support schemes included in the checker.
The page included:
- a clear statement that no childcare support was currently available through the schemes checked
- a list of the childcare support schemes the service has checked for
- a prompt encouraging users to check again if their circumstances changed
- links to further information and guidance
- links to local support through local authorities and Family Hubs
- the option to change their answers
The intention was to help users understand what to do next rather than leaving them with a simple negative outcome.
The design also recognised that eligibility can change over time. Rather than presenting the outcome as permanent, the page encouraged users to re-check if their circumstances changed.
Explaining the outcome without introducing unnecessary complexity
We deliberately avoided presenting detailed policy explanations or eligibility rules on the page.
While this would have provided greater transparency, we were concerned that large amounts of policy content could be difficult for users to understand and may increase cognitive load.
Instead, the page focused on providing a concise explanation that the user was not currently eligible for support through the schemes assessed in the checker.
We wanted to understand whether this level of explanation would be enough for users to trust the outcome, or whether they would need more information about how the result had been reached.
Providing multiple support routes
Research throughout the project had shown that some users wanted additional support when navigating childcare funding and eligibility.
To support this, we included several onward journeys beneath the result.
Users could:
- read broader guidance about childcare support
- contact their local authority's early years or family information service
- find support through Family Hubs
- change their answers
This reflected our assumption that users receiving a negative outcome may still need help understanding their options or may have circumstances that are not fully covered by the checker.
What we learned and how we iterated
The first round of research that included this design took place in libraries across Essex and involved 16 participants.
Researchers used a range of realistic results scenarios during testing, including outcomes where users were not eligible for childcare support.
Only a small number of participants were shown not-eligible results. The findings presented in this post should therefore be treated as directional and used alongside broader findings from the wider results-page research.
Users wanted to understand why they were not eligible
Although only a small number of participants were shown the not-eligible results page, the feedback was consistent.
Both participants wanted to understand why support was unavailable, whether their circumstances might change in future and what options were available to them. This suggested that users do not view eligibility as a simple yes or no answer.
This aligns with a broader pattern seen throughout research, where participants frequently looked for reassurance and additional explanation.
Users wanted next steps to be more visible
Another participant focused less on the explanation and more on what they could do next.
They felt the existing "What you can do next" section should appear earlier and be given greater prominence. The participant initially interpreted the results page as simply telling them they were not eligible and stopped there.
This suggested that signposting may be most effective when it is visible alongside the outcome itself rather than appearing later in the page.
The feedback also reinforced the idea that users often arrive at the results page looking for help taking action, not simply information.
One user misunderstood the negative result altogether
One of the more concerning findings was that a participant initially believed they were eligible for support shown lower on the page, despite being presented with a not-eligible result.
Researchers observed that the participant missed the wording explaining that support was unavailable and instead focused on the childcare support listed.
This suggested that negative outcomes may require stronger visual hierarchy and clearer language than positive outcomes.
For users scanning quickly, particularly in busy real-world environments, there is a risk that important outcome information can be overlooked.
Support expectations varied
When asked where they would look for help, participants typically scrolled towards the bottom of the page expecting to find support options or contact information. This aligned with the existing page structure.
However, users wanted different kinds of support.
Some preferred speaking to someone directly. Others mentioned chat services, AI tools or speaking to their nursery. One participant said they were unsure which support link they should choose, while another expressed concerns about navigating local authority websites.
Participants generally wanted a quick and direct route to support. They did not want to spend time searching for contact information or deciding who could help with their circumstances. Some appeared less confident in generic support routes and wanted more certainty that they would receive useful help.
This reflected a wider challenge for the service. There is no single support route dedicated to childcare support eligibility. Instead, users may need to access guidance, local authority services, Family Hubs or scheme-specific support depending on their circumstances.
These findings reinforced the value of providing clearer and more targeted support routes. Users often wanted a quick way to get help and appeared to benefit from being given fewer options, with clearer guidance on which route was most relevant to their situation.
How this informed later work
The research suggested that negative outcomes need to do more than explain ineligibility. They also need to help users understand:
- why the outcome occurred
- whether circumstances could change in future
- what action they can take next
Although only a small number of participants saw the not-eligible results page, the findings highlighted several improvements we felt were low risk and aligned with broader themes from the research.
We iterated the design to make the outcome more prominent by changing the page heading to clearly state that the user is not currently eligible for childcare support. We also brought guidance and support options closer to the main outcome so users could more easily understand what to do next.
We simplified the support content and placed greater emphasis on helping users understand childcare support and where they could get advice. We also retained messaging encouraging users to check again if their circumstances change, reflecting that eligibility can change over time.
Because of the small sample size, these changes should be viewed as iterative improvements rather than conclusive solutions. We will continue to test and refine how we support users who are not eligible for childcare support.
You can also read our design history about iterating designs for the results page.
What we still need to learn
We need to do further research with users who are not eligible for support in order to better understand how we can support them.
We still need to understand more about:
- how much explanation users need to trust a negative outcome
- when signposting is sufficient and when additional explanation is required
- whether users can identify actions that may affect future eligibility
- what support users expect when they cannot access childcare support
We also need to understand whether different types of negative outcomes require different approaches. There may be important differences between users who:
- are not eligible
- may become eligible in future
- have circumstances that cannot be fully assessed within the service
We will continue to explore this over the rest of the beta phase.