What the September measurement shows
What this piece finds
The September rankings score 131 of 147 local authority fostering services and regional hubs in England, with a median Findability Score of 57.7 out of 100.
Structured data is where the scored services lose the most points: 102 of the 131 carry none of the structured data we check for.
Scores cluster so tightly that a change of a few places in one month tells a service less than the direction of travel over several.
16 services are not measured rather than scored, because their websites block our checks and we record what we couldn’t measure instead of recording a zero.
How findable is local authority fostering in England in September 2026?
The middle Findability Score across 131 scored local authority fostering services and regional hubs was 57.7 out of 100 in the September 2026 measurement. The Findability Score measures how easy a fostering service is to find on Google and in AI assistants. 16 of the 147 services we measure couldn’t be scored, and we record them as not measured rather than as zero.
A monthly measurement is useful because it makes change visible. It’s dangerous when every movement becomes a story.
The September rankings cover 147 local authority fostering services and regional hubs in England. 131 have a current Findability Score, which is how easy it is to find a fostering service online. 16 are not measured instead: their websites blocked our checks, so we record that rather than a zero. The median Findability Score is 57.7 out of 100.
Figure 1
Most scored services fall in the 50s and 60s
16 not measured
The figures
| Score band | Services |
|---|---|
| 0s | 0 |
| 10s | 1 |
| 20s | 2 |
| 30s | 3 |
| 40s | 17 |
| 50s | 61 |
| 60s | 35 |
| 70s | 12 |
| 80s | 0 |
| 90s | 0 |
| Not measured | 16 |
Most scored services sit in a narrow band. 96 of the 131 fall in the 50s and 60s.
How much should one month’s rank matter?
Not much, because scores are packed so closely together. When scores sit this close, a small change shifts a service several places. We’ve measured the noise: 2 measurements on the same day can differ by up to 2.6 points. A single change in rank tells you less than the direction of travel across several months, and how we measure sets out why.
Where do services lose the most points?
Local authority fostering services lose most of their points on structured data. The middle result is 0 out of 100 for structured data, 56.3 for being named by AI assistants (where 60 is the most possible), 75 for having a website that can be read, and 87.6 for being found on Google. The AI check has that ceiling because 2 of the questions in that measure can’t be won, and how we measure explains why. The same ceiling means no service can score more than 88 overall.
Figure 2
Structured data accounts for most of the points services can still win
The figures
| Check | Median result | Most any service can reach | Weight | Points unwon |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structured data | 0 | 100 | 0.20 | 20.0 |
| Website can be read | 75 | 100 | 0.20 | 5.0 |
| Found on Google | 87.6 | 100 | 0.30 | 3.7 |
| Named by AI assistants | 56.3 | 60 | 0.30 | 1.1 |
Measured against what each check can actually reach, the median results leave 29.8 points unwon, and structured data accounts for 20.0 of them. 102 of the 131 scored services carry none of the structured data we check for. It’s the biggest single block of lost points in the rankings, and it’s work a web team can do once in a template. I’ve set out what’s missing in the structured data most fostering services are missing.
Why does FosterScope report 2 numbers?
The Findability Score is the diagnostic one. It covers the parts of a service’s presence the service can fix itself. Share of Local Fostering Voice is the competitive one: the share of local fostering Google results that come from the local authority and its hub rather than from an independent fostering agency (IFA). A service can repair its own foundations without moving the competitive picture straight away. And a service can look healthy on its own terms while IFAs take most of the local results around it. That’s why we measure both.
Why are 16 services not scored?
Because their websites blocked our checks, and FosterScope doesn’t turn something it couldn’t measure into a zero. A zero looks precise and can be completely wrong. Where the evidence isn’t there, the rankings say so, and they’ll keep saying so as the services we measure grow in number, whoever is or isn’t a client.
Read September as one measurement in a series. Whether local authority fostering gets easier to find over the coming months, and whether that turns into a bigger share of local results, is the movement worth watching.
Find your own service in the rankings, then see what we do for local authorities.