Trips are off because of a couple of adults and what they did?

[girlfriend44]

I volunteer at a centre and we do trips out for centre users?

On the recent trip out a couple of the adults got in a strangers car and now the boss has said there are no more trips because of what they did? Is this harsh?
The adults that did this were Ok by the way?

No, it’s not harsh.
The centre manager is trying to save their own butt too because they’re fully culpable.

As others have said, it’s a major safeguarding issue and it needs dealing with.
Vulnerable adults were also allowed to go for a walk on their own, with staff knowing they weren’t able to remain safe.

It doesn’t sound like a risk assessment was even done, or if it was, it was ignored or not relayed in full to the staff there.

You missed out so much relevant context in your OP I initially assumed you'd accidentally hit 'send' halfway through.

And then you went on to minimise what happened because the service users were 'okay'.

I'd say whoever cancelled those excursions has their head screwed on right if your colleagues are as lackadaisical as you, @girlfriend44.

Two vulnerable adults getting into a stranger's car is a huge deal I'm not surprised that trips have been cancelled obviously the staff are not fit to look after them.

Ultimately it lies with the person who is managing the centre and it seems that if they actually started an inquiry as to what went wrong, the manager would get it in the neck/lose their job. Hence why the ‘no trips’ option was probably taken.

That's exactly what the OP is doing.

On the recent trip out a couple of the adults got in a strangers car

Two vulnerable adults were left unsupervised for long enough that they were able to do this

and now the boss has said there are no more trips because of what they did?

Not because of what they did, but because of what they were able to do. The fact two vulnerable adults were under such poor care from whoever was supposed to be looking after them means that, rightly, the quality of care being provided by the day center is not appropriate and therefore no more day trips should be allowed until a full investigation has taken place to establish how this was able to happen in the first place.

Is this harsh? The adults that did this were Ok by the way?

No, not harsh, sensible. They may have been okay but that was purely down to luck. They were at risk, specifically because those who were responsible for their care failed in their safeguarding.

Your lack of understanding as to why this is such a big deal is concerning. Vulnerable adults are "vulnerable" for a reason and therefore require additional support to stay safe. If this can not be ensured by the people responsible for their safety, those people can no longer be trusted to take the adults on day trips.

Absolutely the right decision. I have relative who lost their job (along with two other colleagues) after an internal review following a similar incident.

I think it makes sense to cancel all trips until the situation has been looked at and staff retrained as to how to look after their vulnerable adults. Surely trips are planned and risk assessments carried out before taking vulnerable people out?

As a parent of a vulnerable teenager I would be a bit concerned if I had found out they had got into a strangers car and did not have a carer with them whilst out and about.

Do you think it is harsh?

This is a major fear of mine when my child with SEN is older, and I am unable to look after him, and he is likely to be in a similar Centre/residential. The thought that he might be put at risk or be in a position to put others at risk makes me feel sick.

As the manager thought he should be all over this, having meetings, further safeguarding training. And you OP should be under no uncertain terms from the manager what the risks are. The way that you talk about it so casually as if it’s no big deal shows that there is a general lax attitude in the charity and others you work with.

Christ, it took you 3 posts to finally tell us them most important part, that these adults are vulnerable.

I can only imagine the 15% who voted YANBU, jumped the gun and got bored of waiting.

I would agree with this. Or what another poster said, that this is a reverse.

I think it depends on how the reason for cancelling the trips was couched. If it was “unfortunately, the incident shows that we don’t have the resources to keep service users safe,” then that’s absolutely fair enough.
If it was more along the lines of “right, you two have ruined it for everyone else because you can’t be trusted” then that’s not good.

Thank goodness the manager has belatedly stepped up to the plate ,now they need to get some decent staff training in place.

Starting with volunteers who don’t understand why safeguarding and risk assessment procedures and policies need to be in place and enforced. Every time.

So sounds like they should have been escorted and their is a safeguarding issue rather than address it the clients are in lockdown.....has it been reported to the inspector...presumably a centre has one like a care home would?

If the centre doesn’t have competent enough staff that vulnerable adults are prevented from getting in cars with strangers, then it is right that trips aren’t run. It’s too big a risk.

Someone dropped the ball which resulted in these people getting in a strangers car, which could have ended up badly.

I work with vulnerable children and if this happened trips would definitely be cancelled until they could guarantee that it wouldn’t happen again.

If a vulnerable adult has got into a strangers’ car while out on a supervised walk it’s a huge safeguarding problem. The fact that they are OK and didn’t come to any harm is definitely a case of good luck rather than good management and is irrelevant to the issue at hand. So yes, your manager was acting properly - it’s not harsh, it’s the sensible thing to do until they get to the bottom of what went wrong and update training or whatever is necessary to ensure it doesn’t happen again. The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about - surprised you don’t seem to recognise that.

It's worrying that you can't see why the trips have to stop.

I imagine that the people in charge of that trip will be asked to explain how the situation arose. It's a significant safeguarding issue.

In time, I imagine they'll start again, once people have had additional training and safeguards have been put in place.

It’s not the service users fault - they’re vulnerable, that’s why they’re supposed to be supervised. My elderly mum has dementia and a dementia charity collects her for a morning out at a community centre each week. They know she’s vulnerable and she’s supervised the whole time. If they allowed her to wander off and get into a strangers’ car I’d have something to say about it, and if they blamed her instead of the blockhead who dropped the ball on supervision, I’d go ballistic !!

Agree with pp.

It might not be permanent, but they need to indefinitely stop the trips until they do a proper investigation into exactly what happened and how.

If this were the case and it was my relative who was put at risk, I would want to know why someone with learning difficulties themselves was put in a position where they were supervising other vulnerable people. I don’t wish to appear unkind, but learning difficulties often come with additional problems such as recognition and appreciation of risk. Posters are asking why the OP doesn’t seem to recognise the risk, but I would be surprised if learning difficulties were to blame as I can’t imagine any voluntary centre allowing the vulnerable to supervise the vulnerable.

Overuse of question marks is not a sign of learning difficulties.

The OP says she volunteers at the centre, but that doesn’t mean she was supervising on the trip.

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy That’s what I mean. If the service users are being used as scapegoats for something that happened because of a lack of appropriate support, then that’s not right.