ily and the likelihood of their full integration into the family and wider community. In cases where the prospective adopter’s ethnic, religious or cultural background does not reflect those of the child, it will be particularly pertinent to provide information about the ways in which the prospective adopter is making use of resources within the wider family and/or community to assist in meeting the child’s identity needs. Section E – recommendations 8.108. This section needs to set out clearly the agency’s own views on the merits of the application for adoption, including consideration of alternative orders. It should be apparent to the court from this section whether the agency itself considers that adoption is more likely than any other order to meet the child’s long-term needs and why. The decision is of course a matter for the court, but it will be assisted by a clear and reasoned recommendation. The agency must also provide its own recommendation as to whether or not there should be arrangements for future contact, again with reasons. 8.109. Under paragraph (b) if the report recommends that the adoption order should not be made, it must include alternative proposals. These may be for a different order in favour of the applicants, for example a residence or special guardianship order. In these circumstances, if a placement order is currently in force, the court would need to consider revoking the placement order under section 24(4) of the Act. This is because the making of a residence or special guardianship order would not automatically revoke the placement order but it would discharge any care order that might be revived by the revocation of the placement order. See section 29(1) of the Act and section 91(1) and (5A) of the 1989 Act. In a case where the agency co