Naming the single directory

As of April 2025, we will not be developing the family hubs digital service further. While we’ve learned a lot, some key challenges, such as how to ensure good quality data, prevent us from creating a valuable service at this time.

The single directory was created to bring together two existing services:

• Find support for your family (‘Find’) - which helped users search for local authority (LA) support services for parents, carers and young people
• Connect families to support (‘Connect’) - which helped practitioners find and connect families with local voluntary, community and faith sector service

You can read more about the decision to merge these two directories in our previous design history.

Both directories had different audiences and purposes, and their original names described the user tasks. As we merged them into a single directory, we needed to determine how to:

• create a name that worked for all user groups
• reflect what the service offers while maintaining clarity and searchability
• align with GOV.UK naming standards while avoiding confusion with existing services

This post outlines the steps taken, research insights and decision-making process so far for naming the service.

Understanding the problem

Once we had made the decision to have a single start page for the single directory it was decided that we would need to come up with a new name. Reasons for this included the fact that not all users:

• would be looking for support for ‘your’ family
• could send connection requests (‘connect’) people with services

One of the main considerations in naming the single directory was balancing the needs of different users:

• public users (parents, carers, young people) - typically looking for help with specific issues or types of service
• practitioners (such as LA early intervention workers) - using the service to find and connect their clients with appropriate services

More specifically we needed to consider for our users:

• how they look for services and the terms they naturally use
• what expectations they have from the service based on its name
• how to avoid any misalignment between the name and what the directory actually provides

We also needed to consider things like the prior research that suggested the word ‘family’ doesn’t resonate with all users.

Our approach

To ensure an evidence-based decision, we used multiple methods, including:

• a naming workshop
• desk research
• user research

Alongside this, our team was also working to clarify the service’s problem statements and define which user groups we should prioritise.

Naming workshop (December 2024)

We organised a team workshop to start the process of thinking about how we approach naming and generate an initial list of potential names.

Preparation for the session included collating:

• examples of similar sites to compare language and positioning
• previous user needs and relevant research
• initial insights on search behaviour, gathered from sources like Google Trends and AnswerThePublic

In the workshop we then went through several activities such as:

• reviewing good and bad examples
• thinking about what our users might say they need or search for
• how you would describe the single directory
• analysing search data
• a ‘namestorm’ of initial suggestions

From the workshop a longlist of 47 names was created. We then refined this based on GOV.UK naming principles, and removing names that were too complex, vague or used uncommon terms.

This left us with a shortlist of 21 potential names. Such as:

• Find help for children and families
• Get support for parents, carers and young people
• Find local services for parents, carers and children
• Find support for parent, carers and young people
• Find and connect with family support
• Find family support services

The key themes that emerged were the use of:

• action-based verbs, with ‘Find’ being the most frequent, followed by ‘get’ and ‘search’
• key terms like ‘support’, ‘services’, and ‘activities’, reflecting what the directory offers
• references to different user groups, including parents, carers, children, and young people

Several suggestions also included the word ‘local’ to emphasise nearby services.

Desk research (January 2025)

To gather additional evidence and data to inform our decision, we next conducted desk research to evaluate the refined shortlist.

First was search behaviour analysis - using Google Trends analytics to understand how common the suggested terms and names were.

The full service names that were tested all had quite low search volumes. For example the ‘Find local family support’, one of the highest ranking names, had around 1,300 searches in 2024. However, longer or more specific terms, rarely appear in high-volume searches on their own. Instead, we also needed to look at the individual words and terms within a name.

Key findings from this included:

• the verbs ‘Find’ and ‘Get’ consistently outperformed ‘Search’
• ‘support’ was popular but worked best when paired with family or children
• ‘children’ was clearer and more commonly used in search than ‘young people’
• ‘activities’ didn’t perform as well as terms like ‘things to do with kids near me’

Secondly, we carried out an overlap analysis, reviewing GOV.UK and other websites to look for any duplication or similarity with existing services or sites. Several names partially or moderately overlapped with other services on GOV.UK, including:

• Find a local support group for children, young people and families
• Find out if there's a family hub in your local area

Some names also overlapped with third-party directories, like:

• Family Action
• Family Lives

What information was still needed

The desk research helped us to better understand how users might search for services but also reinforced the need to test name options in context.

While we now had a clearer sense of what might work, we still needed to:

• understand more about the service’s purpose and the specific users we were targeting
• balance what people naturally search for with GOV.UK naming guidance
• validate our assumptions through user research, rather than relying on speculative data

This informed the decision to adopt a temporary placeholder name and test this before deciding on a final option.

Playback to policy and user-centred design (UCD) colleagues

After completing the desk research, we engaged with other teams across policy, design and content to share our findings and get feedback.

A walkthrough session was held with policy teams to explain the shortlist, what we’d learned so far, and what we planned to do next.

We also shared our approach at a cross-team UCD session within our portfolio. Feedback from this supported the direction we were heading in - particularly the focus on names that were simple, action-based, and inclusive. Within this we also conducted a simple poll around the options for a placeholder name.

Choosing a placeholder name for research

To allow testing and development of the single directory to continue, we needed a temporary name to use in the short term.

We aimed to balance clarity, inclusivity, and discoverability based on research insights so far and chose ‘Find support for parents, carers and young people’

This was selected because it:

• followed GOV.UK naming guidelines.
• received positive feedback in the UCD colleague playback.
• reflected the scope and users of the service as it stood at the time
• was supported by the research conducted so far

We chose to use ‘young people’ rather than ‘children’ to reflect that the service covered up to age 18, or 25 for users with SEND. However, we recognised this might not feel natural or clear to all users and planned to revisit this in later research.

We also avoided using family based on the earlier research suggested that not all users identified with this word.

Insight from user research with parents (January to March 2025)

As part of 4 rounds of research with parents, we tested how people search for help, how they describe their needs, and how they responded to the placeholder. This involved usability testing and open-ended questions focused on language and expectations.

You can read a summary of all of the parents’ research on our design history about this.

Round 1, 2 and 3: search behaviour and expectations

These rounds helped us understand how people approached finding help, what language felt familiar or unclear, and what they expected from a service like this.

How parents search

Key findings included:

• people often searched using activity-based or problem-specific phrases like ‘toddler groups’ or ‘things to do with kids near me’
• specific terms like ‘family support’ or ‘services’ were rarely used
• ‘support’ did not always resonate - some users saw this as formal or crisis-based help, rather than something relevant to them
• several suggested that inclusion of the word ‘local’ often drew them to a site

Expectations of GOV.UK

Key findings included:

• many users assumed GOV.UK was mainly for national information or official guidance
• some were surprised to find local services listed, and said they wouldn’t have expected to find these on a government website

Reactions to the placeholder name

Key findings included:

• the name didn’t always explain what the service was - some thought it would cover guidance or general support information rather than a directory
• ‘young people’ wasn’t specifically confusing, but was not a term used naturally by parents who would search using things like ‘children’ or ‘kids’
• the word ‘support’ could be confusing or misleading, as many did not identify with needing support

Overall, many participants felt the name sounded too formal for a directory that had details of things like activities and groups, as well as specific support. Others assumed it was about peer support for parents, rather than services or activities they could access themselves.

These findings helped us better understand what users needed from the name, and the need to test alternatives.

Round 4: testing an alternative name

For round 4 of research, we introduced a new name, ‘Find local services and activities for children, parents and carers’.

We chose this because it was distinct from the previous placeholder and gave us an opportunity to test the following:

• ‘local’ in order to see if this improved relevance
• ‘children’ instead of ‘young people’ to see if it better matched the language users naturally used
• ‘activities’ and services’ to reflect what some users said they expected to find

We also updated some of the language on the start and search results pages to reflect some of the findings from the first 3 rounds.

Findings from round 4

Users responded well to the new name and supporting content. Key findings included:

• adding ‘local’ helped clarify that the service covered nearby results
• including ‘activities’ gave a clearer sense of what users could expect to find
• removing ‘support’ made more parents feel like the service was relevant to them

These findings helped validate some of the findings from the previous rounds of research.

Next steps

After round 3, we agreed with the product manager to delay the naming decision until after the minimal viable product (MVP) went live. This would allow us to continue learning from user research and additional work that was being done around clarifying the service’s positioning and scope. We then planned to resume naming work once those decisions had been made.

Post-MVP naming decision

If the project were to continue or evolve in future, the final name would need to be confirmed. This would involve reviewing previous insight and testing against the agreed purpose and audience for the service.

Once agreed, the name could be implemented across the service, including updates to the URL, start page, metadata and wider GOV.UK content where relevant.

Future considerations

While we’ve made some progress, some areas remain unresolved. These would need further exploration if the naming work were to continue in future. These include clarifying:

• the long-term purpose of the service and whether it focuses on local activities, targeted support, or both
• whether to include ‘family’ as earlier research suggested not everyone identifies with this term
• if shorter name formats and how meaning can be supported by surrounding content
• how different users respond to names, including parents of older children or people searching on someone else’s behalf
• how users enter the service and how the name performs in search and referral journeys

Any future work should revisit the balance between searchability and inclusivity to make sure the name works for a range of users and contexts.