Thread by @CICADAServices

To explain why I’m passionate about enabling RITBG homes to be considered for a child, Ive written a more detailed explanation here: linkedin.com/posts/marie-tu… #puttingchildrenfirst #smartmatching

Some folk not on Linkedin so I've been asked to copy this on here. Here goes: "Successfully managed to get my RITBG point across to a new commissioner last week. Used this theoretical scenario:

A Child who is deaf needs a placement. They need a children’s home environment 1/

and want to live with deaf peers. They want to live within an hour of their family. There are two options:
(A) is a ‘RITBG’ home, inspected a year ago which has improved immensely. It is a fully signing environment with current placing LAs giving it raving reviews. 2/

(B) is a ‘Good’ home which has deteriorated slightly. No staff can sign & no other young people are deaf.
Yet by having policies which state ‘only good or outstanding homes will be considered, the child would be placed in home B. 3/

How can this be right? How can we have policies which act against the best interests of children? The individual match for the child (considering their unique & individual needs and wishes) must always be the primary consideration. Price & OFSTED rating must always remain 4/

a secondary consideration. Important, but only a secondary factor.
I struggle to understand why some people in our sector disagree with this?

Let’s put children first. Before services. This is how we will ensure the best match, the best stability, value for the public purse & 5/

ultimately the best outcomes for children. /end

@threadreaderapp unroll please