Single directory: understanding how parents find family services

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.

Creating the family hubs single directory aimed to more effectively connect parents, carers and young people with support they need.

We previously wrote a design history about early testing with practitioners who support families. We next needed to understand more about how parents look for support and if the directory would be of value to them.

This post outlines our approach, what we learned, and how the findings might have shaped our design work.

The problem: making sure the directory is useful for parents

For the single directory to succeed, it will need to meet the needs of parents and carers. If parents cannot find the directory, identify relevant services, or do not trust the information provided, they won’t use it.

Through 4 rounds of research, we explored:

• how parents look for and determine the relevance of services
• what value the single directory provides for different groups of parents
• the impact of missing data on decision-making
• the language and search terms parents use, and what this means for naming
• any barriers parents face when discovering services, including how they find the directory itself

Some of our focus was based on specific technical and practical challenges we were facing, which we wanted to understand more about. For example:

• the impact of inconsistent and low-quality data provided by local authorities (LAs)
• how technical restrictions influenced usability, such as those created by the Open Referral data (OR) standard which we were using
• how changes to content would influence user behaviour, such as changes to the service name

By testing these areas, we aimed to identify the biggest barriers parents face when finding services, and how we might improve our service.

Our research approach

We ran 4 rounds of research with 24 parents and iterated our approach as we built up evidence.

We tested the directory prototype with parents from different backgrounds, who had a range of experiences of using support services. This was done to try and ensure our findings reflected a range of search behaviours and expectations.

Each round began with 2 activities focussed on:

• exploring existing behaviours, past experiences of looking for services, challenges faced and how parents determined whether a service is right for them
• asking participants to search for a service using a mocked-up Google results page to observe how they scanned results and what influenced their decisions

For each round we adapted the questions and prototype depending on specific things we wanted to test.

We recruited in 2 ways.

For round 1 we worked with LAs to recruit parents who had previously engaged with council-run services, such as family hubs. This meant participants were already somewhat familiar with support services available through their LA.

From round 2, we used a partner organisation to recruit parents with a wider range of experiences.

Rounds 1 and 2: understanding general search behaviours

In the first 2 rounds, we focussed on understanding how parents searched for and experienced services.

Along with 2 starting activities mentioned before, we also asked parents to review different service listings and discuss:

• what details were helpful and stood out
• what was missing
• whether they would feel confident using the service

This provided us with some insight into how information should be structured and presented. Findings also helped us shape the later rounds of research.

Round 3: parents of children with additional needs

This round focused specifically on parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). These parents often face additional challenges in finding suitable services, making it essential to understand what barriers they encounter.

Additional objectives for this round included understanding:

• different expectations or concerns compared to other parents
• how they navigated the directory to find the right services for their needs

Along with 2 starting activities mentioned before, we also asked parents:

• to find a service using the prototype, based on a real or hypothetical scenarios so we could observe how easily they could find what they needed
• how different ways of presenting service information affected understanding and trust

We also asked parents what they would do if key details were absent and how this affected their confidence in using the service.

Round 4: testing refined designs

The final round focused on validating design changes based on previous rounds and some of the technical constraints we were facing. This included testing changes to service descriptions and filtering options.

Additional objectives for this round included understanding:

• whether content updates (such as an alternative service name) improved trust and engagement with the service
• the impact of OR standards on the data we can display, filters and categories, and overall usability
• whether parents could easily identify relevant services compared to earlier rounds
• how participants responded to changes made based on previous rounds

Some of the key things we wanted to test based on earlier rounds include:

• trying a different service name as some participants saw the previous name as inaccurate or irrelevant
• replacing postcode search with town or city, because this had been causing some confusion, and we cannot guarantee we have a postcode for all services
• adding active website links on the search results page to see if this reduced unnecessary navigation steps
• displaying service descriptions on the results page to test if providing more detail upfront helped parents assess relevance more quickly

Along with the first 2 activities, we also asked parents to:

• use the updated directory to search for services based on real or hypothetical scenarios, to observe how they navigated the search results
• evaluate service listings and missing data, comparing their reaction to things like short or long descriptions to gauge information preferences
• talk though their next steps when they encountered incomplete or unclear information

Findings from this round helped us to further validate key design decisions and refine recommendations for improving the service.

Findings and key insights

Our user researchers collaborated with other members of the team to analyse the insight collected from the 4 rounds. These findings have been documented for use in any future work.

In this section we have highlighted some of the key findings around how parents look for and evaluate services.

How parents looked for services

Across all 4 rounds, parents consistently said they did not begin their search by looking for a directory. Instead, most relied on word-of-mouth recommendations from other parents and professionals like teachers or practitioners or social media, like local Facebook groups.

When searching on the internet, parents typically searched using plain language based on need or activity type (for example, “kids clubs near me”, “free creative activities for children in [location]”).

How parents judged Google results

Across all rounds when presented with the mocked-up page of Google search results, parents tended to gravitate towards providers they recognised or had been recommended before. They also:

• were drawn to reputable local results and those where they could identify the ages of their children
• sometimes open multiple tabs to compare services quickly
• cross-checked results by looking for reviews, searching service names separately, or asking their contacts who may have been already
• were cautious of results that appeared to be advertising
• disregarded those that looked generic

Well-known brands or charities, local council sites, and recognisable children’s organisations tended to be clicked on more readily. Results that looked like forums, social media, or parenting blogs, like Reddit or Mumsnet, were also trusted for lived experience and peer opinions.

In summary, some of the main things parents look out for are:

• recognition - names they’d seen before or heard from people they trust
• legitimacy - signs the site was official or trustworthy (for example, it is a council site)
• clarity - it is easy to know what it links to
• relevance - it is clear that the service or website fits their need, by location or age

If some of those elements were not present, confidence dropped and several parents said they would not click through unless it was clear what they were getting.

Mixed trust in Government and council websites

While some parents trusted GOV.UK and council websites others were put off. This tended to be based on their personal experience, and whether their needs had been met before.

Those with negative experiences did not think they would be able to find helpful information or support. Those with neutral or positive experience tended to see them as a trusted source of information. However, this meant they had heightened expectations, assuming that all the services listed would be vetted, which is something we did not have a process for guaranteeing.

When considering GOV.UK most participants thought it would lead to legal and national advice linked to official processes. They tended to assume council sites would be much more likely to provide information about local services.

This is something we explored further in the fourth round by testing an alternative service name. You can read more about this on our service naming design history.

Initial reactions to the single directory start page and postcode search

Parents generally found the start page clear and easy to navigate. They appreciated the bulleted lists explaining what the service could help with, often identifying themselves in one or more categories.

There were some issues raised around the postcode search page. Some parents were confused about what would happen next after entering a postcode. Most of them expected to be able to refine their search, by things like type of service, before being presented with results. They expected results to be listed by distance, with the closest services shown first. This wasn’t always possible based on the data currently held by LAs we worked with.

We did test in the last round with getting participants to enter a town name instead of a postcode, however this usually led to more confusion. This mismatch between the existing journey and users’ mental models meant some parents did not fully understand if results they were seeing were relevant or nearby.​

What information parents look for on the directory

When scanning service listings, parents were looking for quick answers to a small number of practical questions, including:

• what types of things will my child be doing?
• how close is it?
• what ages does it cater for?
• when is it on?
• how much will it cost me?
• can I just turn up or do I need to book?
• how do I get in touch or find out more?

This reflected the need of parents who were trying to find quickly relevant services and activities that would fit within their schedule.

The absence of these details often caused drop-off. If the listing lacked enough information to make a confident decision, parents would either search elsewhere for more information or give up.

Trust and decision-making

Another key thing parents were looking for was around the idea of trust. Most participants expressed a desire to understand things like:

• if the service was appropriate, based on their needs and those of their child
• if they would feel safe leaving their child there
• who was providing the service and their credentials

They mentioned that certain cues could undermine trust, such as:

• broken links
• out-of-date information
• vague descriptions

We responded to this by testing the impact of descriptions of differing quality and making website links visible on the search results page. We saw that with a clear description and a functioning link, parents were much more likely to engage with a service.

Many parents, especially those with children with additional needs, also wanted content that they could show to the child to:

• reassure them
• address any anxieties

This included things like:

• reviews or comments from other parents
• photos to show what the place looked like

We didn’t manage to test adding these kinds of features. However, we would want to explore it in future rounds of research.

The impact of missing data

One of the main challenges we faced with creating the directory was the inconsistent quality and completeness of service data provided by local authorities. We expected this would affect parents’ ability to make confident decisions.

We observed two main impacts of incomplete or inconsistent service data:

1. Parents couldn't evaluate the listing - if key details like a description, location or age range were missing, they either dismissed the service entirely or sought more info elsewhere.
2. Search and filters became less useful - the effectiveness of filters relied on structured, consistent data. Without it, some services didn’t appear in filtered results or displayed limited info, leading to frustration or confusion.

This reinforced the importance of having a minimum viable data standard for service listings and designing with data limitations in mind. For more detail read our design history about addressing issues with importing data to the single directory.

Key insights from research with parents

The 4 rounds of research revealed several overarching themes that influenced how we thought about value, usability, and future direction for the single directory.

1. Parents had established ways of finding services

Parents relied on word-of-mouth, social media and trusted professionals like health visitors or teachers. Searching online was rare unless they already knew what they were looking for and when they did, they tended to prefer sources they already trusted.

It's unlikely that a service like the single directory will be discovered through organic search. To reach parents, we would need to explore the use of existing trusted channels or processes.

2. Location and relevance were key to service selection

To decide whether a service was suitable, parents looked for core pieces of information:

• how close it was to them
• what age group it was for
• what kind of activities or support it involved
• how much it cost
• how they could access or book it
• whether they could click through to a website or contact someone

Unless this key information is consistently available, the value of the directory is limited. Current data quality and structure makes it difficult to meet these expectations.

3. Even when information was available, it wasn’t always usable

Parents often relied on the service description to understand whether something was right for them. But long or unclear descriptions made this difficult. Skimming was common, so formatting, clarity, and structure all played a role in usability.

If parents cannot quickly understand what a service offers, they may not engage with it at all. Consistent formatting, using things like clear headings, bullets, or visual cues, could help improve navigation and comprehension.

4. Existing filters and categories didn’t support effective searching

Although the existing category filters were usable, it didn’t help parents narrow their options in a meaningful way.

When parents couldn’t find the right services, they often gave up. Without improvements to search and filtering, the service risks failing to provide value to our users.

Next steps

If the work on the single directory was to continue these are the questions and approaches, we would recommend.

Remaining questions

This research gave us insight into how parents search for services and what they would need from a directory. But there are several questions that remain that would help us build on this research, including:

• how might we reach parents through trusted channels rather than relying on search engines or organic discovery?
• what value does the service offer to parents and carers in real-world use?
• how does the single directory compare to existing local directories from a parent's point of view?
• how can we ensure enough relevant services are available on the directory?
• what would a parent journey look like for using the connection request tool?

Answering these would help determine the directory’s long-term value and what else needs to be in place to make it work for parents and other users.

If the work were to continue

Based on these 4 rounds of research, some of the areas of design we would look at for the directory post-MVP would include:

• setting clear standards for service listings, including a minimum viable data standard to improve consistency and usability
• improving how services are categorised and how users can filter and search results
• exploring ways to improve the quality of data being added to the directory, or how to mitigate any missing or incomplete information

To find out more about some of this you can:

• read our design history about the single directory MVP and post-MVP work
• read our design history about addressing issues with importing data to the single directory

Updated understanding of parent user needs

Based on what we heard across the 4 rounds, we updated our user needs. These updates would help us ensure any future design decisions aligned more closely with what users needed from a service directory.

Here are the updated user needs in full:

1. I need to be able to easily find relevant information about services, activities, and support available locally and close to me, so that I can judge if they are right for me and access them.

To make this judgement, parents told us they also needed to know:

• its location and how close this is to me, so that I can understand if I can reach it, and how to get there

• the age groups it caters for, so that I can assess whether it’s appropriate

• the type of activities provided, so that I can assess whether it meets my or my children’s preferences

• its cost, so I can confirm whether it’s worth it

• how to access the service, so that i know whether I need to book and how, or if i can just show up

• a website and contact details, so that I can follow up for further information

Other updated needs included:

1. I need to be able to identify activity times, so that I can find services that I can access outside of my or my children’s busiest hours, such as nap time, working, studying or nursery.

2. I need to be able to find a choice of services that suits my preferences and lifestyle, so that I or my children can access them in a way that works for us.

3. I need to be reassured of the quality and safety of a service, so I can be motivated to access it. (Previously linked to parents with complex needs but now considered valid for all user types).

4. I need to be signposted to support by someone I trust, so that I can feel comfortable exploring options independently. (Relevant for those with a more methodical mindset.)

5. I need to be signposted and guided through support by someone I trust, so that I can feel comfortable accessing it. (Relevant for those with a more instinctive approach.)