Adult Support and Protection (ASP) National Minimum Dataset, 2024-25 – Technical Report

Data and methodology

Indicators in the Adult Support and Protection National Minimum Dataset

The Adult Support and Protection National Minimum Dataset (ASP NMDS) in 2024-25 included 19 data items (‘indicators’) that related to ASP activity in Scotland in the financial year 2024-25. Each of the 32 local authorities submitted a quarterly return of the indicators to the Scottish Government.

A full list of the indicators in the 2024-25 quarterly returns is in Annex 1.

Assessment of data quality in the ASP NMDS 2024-25

The ASP NMDS has been in development since 2020 and was introduced in a trial phase (‘phase 1’) for financial year 2023-24. Local authorities needed to update their reporting practices and recording systems to allow for the reporting for the ASP NMDS. These changes could not always happen in time for all local authorities to report data consistently during 2023-24. In recognition of this, Scottish Government chose not to publish data from 2023-24 (with the exception of Large Scale Investigation figures, which are published within the 2024-25 publication).

The Scottish Government and Iriss assessed the data for 2024-25 as sufficiently robust and consistent to enable publication for most data items at a national (Scottish) level, as Official Statistics in Development. Official statistics in development may be new or existing statistics, and will be tested with users, in line with the standards of trustworthiness, quality, and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics. If you have any feedback on these statistics that you would like to share, you can contact Scottish Government using the details in the ‘Tell us what you think’ chapter.

Data on some of the indicators collected in 2024-25 has not been published, to give local authorities further time to develop their systems to ensure the data for these indicators are robust and consistent.

Iriss and the Scottish Government will continue to work with local practitioners and national agencies throughout financial year 2025-26 to further strengthen and implement the ASP national minimum data set. This will include supporting them to consistently report on the indicators. For more information, please see the chapter on Future Plans in the main publication.

Ensuring data quality

To provide their quarterly data returns, local authorities used a reporting template (“workbook”) which was accessed from Iriss’ website. Guidance on completing the workbook, a glossary of the terms used, and a set of FAQs was also provided on the website to assist local authorities with their data returns. Local authorities were also encouraged to provide additional feedback to Iriss and the Scottish Government where needed on any issues they are encountering with providing robust or consistent data.

The quarterly returns were shared securely with Iriss by the Scottish Government. Iriss conducted data quality checks on the data received and worked with Scottish Government and the relevant local authorities to resolve any identified issues. Iriss also compiled national level quarterly data from the returns. The Scottish Government and Iriss hosted quarterly meetings attended by local authority, Adult Protection Committee, and data systems provider representatives, during which summaries from the quarterly returns were shared as Management Information. This provided key ASP stakeholders with a view of how their local data compared to national level results and also presented a further opportunity for them to identify any reporting concerns, challenges, improvements arising, and best practice in data analysis and application.

Iriss also provided feedback and a summary of the data trends each quarter to local authorities as unpublished Management Information, via online presentations. Local authorities were encouraged to provide feedback to Iriss and Scottish Government during these presentations and throughout the year.

Development and use of the ASP NMDS data is supported by the ASP National Data Reference Group, co-chaired by the Scottish Government and Iriss.

Production of the 2024-25 publication

This publication has been produced by the Scottish Government in collaboration with Iriss. The roles of the two organisations are explained here.

The Scottish Government:

• Received quarterly returns from local authorities throughout 2024-25 and shared them securely with Iriss.
• Supported ongoing data quality checks with local authorities throughout the year. This included organising quarterly feedback sessions to reflect on the data as management information, and to discuss potential reporting issues.
• Carried out data quality checks on the compiled 2024-25 annual data in the ASP NMDS.
• Provided final quality assurance on the statistics reported in this publication.
• Ensured the statistics in this publication were produced in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics.
• Co-chaired ASP National Data Reference Group meetings to support high- level oversight of the dataset and its use.

Iriss:

• Received the quarterly returns from the Scottish Government.
• Carried out ongoing data quality checks with local authorities throughout the year. This included presenting the collated national data – plus local data - as management information at quarterly feedback sessions and discussing potential issues at the regular Data Reference Group meetings.
• Compiled the quarterly returns from local authorities into the ASP NMDS for 2024-25 and shared this securely with the Scottish Government.
• Produced the statistics for 2024-25 presented in the main publication.
• Co-chaired ASP National Data Reference Group meetings to support high level oversight of the dataset and its use.

Both organisations:

• Worked collaboratively with local authorities and their data system providers throughout the year to address potential data quality concerns and improve the consistency and robustness of data reporting.
• Contributed to producing the commentary in this publication.

General data quality notes

The data presented in the main publication and in the accompanying data tables is a national-level summary of the data as reported to the Scottish Government for the ASP NMDS in 2024-25. Where data were missing (not reported), we have not attempted to estimate the missing data. Similarly, where we were informed of a known reporting issue, we have not attempted to make any changes to the data to correct for the issue. 

Despite improvements between 2023-24 (‘phase 1’) and 2024-25, for the 2024-25 data collection there still existed some variation in the recording practices and data reporting abilities between local authorities that affects the 2024-25 data.

Also, as noted in the Introduction of the main publication, some ongoing differences existed in how local authorities implemented the ASP Act and the associated ASP Code of Practice. This variation in ASP practice across the local authorities impacts the comparability of the data reported for some indicators in the ASP NMDS.   

Some local authorities made improvements to their reporting practices during 2024-25. In some cases this led to changes in the data they reported for an indicator, between quarters. When this happened, local authorities were sometimes able to submit revised (updated) data for earlier quarters. In other cases they were not, and there was therefore a change in what data they were able to report between quarters. Where this is the case, more information is provided below and it is also noted in the accompanying data tables for the quarterly data. The data presented for 2024-25 in the main publication and in the accompanying data tables is always the most recent data we received from local authorities, including any revised data where this was supplied.

The following section gives further information on the data quality notes for individual indicators in 2024-25.

Data for some of the indicators included in the ASP NMDS in 2024-25 has not been published. A decision not to publish data on an indicator was made where several local authorities were unable to report data, and/or where several expressed concern about the robustness of their data. Please see the section on indicators not reported on in Annex 1 for more information.

Data quality notes on individual indicators

In the main publication we provided a high-level summary of any known data quality notes for each indicator. Further details are provided below.

The individual local authorities affected for each indicator are not named. However, we have illustrated the scale of the effect by providing a figure for the percentage of Scotland’s 16+ population covered by the local authorities referred to. Where the effect refers to only one local authority, we have presented this percentage figure as a range, in order not to identify the local authority by its size.

Number of reported ASP referrals, and reported source (indicator 1)

In 2024-25, there was continuing variation in how local authorities count ASP referrals. The ways in which local authorities collect referral numbers included:

• Every referral made to the local authority: this included potentially multiple referrals about one individual or incident from different referrers.
• Cumulate referrals made about an incident or individual: This means that even if multiple referrers contacted ASP services about the same incident or referral, this only counted as one referral.
• After decision of appropriateness of referral: Some local authorities had screening processes of all referrals, and referrals were only counted as ASP referrals if they were deemed relevant to ASP.

In addition, users should be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

Over-estimation of number of referrals: one local authority was unable to delete duplicate referrals or referrals made in error when reporting on this indicator. Therefore their number of referrals was likely to be an over-estimate of the ASP referrals they received in 2024-25. This will affect the total number of referrals reported at national level. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

Challenges in reporting the source of referrals: one local authority was unable to accurately report referrals from the Scottish Ambulance Service throughout 2024-25, and also reported they were unable to differentiate between other different ‘health’ referral sources. (No further information given). This will affect the national-level breakdown of referrals by source. Size of local authority affected: 5-15%.

Changes in reporting practices throughout the year: one local authority reported they updated their reporting practices between Q2 and Q3, leading to a decrease in the number of referrals reported from Police Scotland. (No further information given). This will affect the total number of national-level referrals and also the national-level breakdown of referrals by source. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

Numbers of inquiries reported, undertaken with and without the use of investigatory powers (indicators 2 and 3)

In 2024-25 there was an ongoing inconsistent approach to the reporting of inquiries with and without the use of investigatory powers across local authorities. There were two reasons for this inconsistency. Firstly, the language around inquiries with investigatory powers changed with the introduction of the updated Code of Practice in July 2022. Previously, these would have been referred to as investigations. However, the decision was made to refer to these nationally as inquiries with investigatory powers to align with the anticipated revised Code of Practice during the development of the ASP NMDS. This change made reporting on inquiries with the use of investigatory powers a challenge for some areas. Secondly, despite the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 (‘the ASP Act’) naming investigatory powers in Section 7 to 10, there was inconsistent ongoing practice across Scotland of what action was classed as investigatory powers.

A national working group is currently developing guidance that will inform the ASP National Minimum Dataset (NMDS) glossary on the definition and use of investigatory powers in practice. This is likely to influence the data reported for this indicator in future years.

In addition, users should be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

Over-estimation of numbers of inquiries: for one local authority, each ASP referral in 2024-25 generated an inquiry and the local authority was unable to delete duplicates. Therefore their total numbers of inquiries reported for 2024-25 was likely to be an over-estimate. Another local authority was unable to accurately report their number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q1 to Q3, and noted those figures were likely to be an over-estimate. The local authority improved the accuracy of their reporting on number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q4. Combined size of local authorities affected: <5%.

Primary type of harm reported for inquiries (indicator 15)

There were challenges for some local authorities to accurately report the primary type of harm, particularly for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers. For this reason, the data presented on primary type of harm was an approximation of the situation at national level. It also means the total numbers reported for primary type of harm did not match the total numbers of inquiries reported.

Note that 2024-25 was the first year local authorities were asked to report primary type of harm for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in the ASP NMDS, as well as for inquires undertaken with the use of investigatory powers.

Users should also be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

For primary type of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers: three local authorities were unable to report on the primary type of harm in some or all of the quarters of 2024-25. This contributes to why the total number of types of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers does not match the total number of inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers (indicator 2). Combined size of the local authorities affected: 8%.

For a further local authority: the local authority was unable to identify the primary type of harm for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers, and reported all types of harm the person may have been subject to. And, due to issues with their reporting system, for Q1-Q3 they reported on the primary type of harm for referrals, rather than for inquiries without the use of investigatory powers. These factors together led to their total number of types of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25 being larger than their total number of reported inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers (indicator 2). Size of local authority affected: <5%.

For both types of inquiries, one local authority was unable to provide any further information where the primary type of harm was initially reported as ‘other’. Size of local authority affected: 5-15%.

Primary location of harm reported for inquiries (indicator 16)

There were challenges for some local authorities to accurately report the primary location of harm, particularly for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers. For this reason, the data presented on primary location of harm was an approximation of the situation at national level. It also means the total numbers reported for primary location of harm did not match the total numbers of inquiries reported.

Note that 2024-25 was the first year local authorities were asked to report primary location of harm for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in the ASP NMDS, as well as for inquires undertaken with the use of investigatory powers.

Users should also be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

For primary location of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers: five local authorities were unable to report on the primary location of harm in some or all of the quarters of 2024-25. This contributes to why the total number of primary location of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers did not match the total number of inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers reported (indicator 2). Combined size of the local authorities affected: 14%.

Another local authority was unable to accurately report their number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q1 to Q3, and noted those figures were likely to be an over-estimate. (See data quality notes for numbers of inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers). This also affected the numbers they reported for primary location of harm for inquiries without the use of investigatory powers. The local authority improved the accuracy of their reporting on number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q4. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

For both types of inquiries, one local authority was unable to provide any further information where the primary location of harm was initially reported as ‘other’. Size of local authority affected: 5-15%.

Age and gender reported for inquiries (indicator 13)

The data presented was an approximation of the situation at national level, as some local authorities noted challenges in reporting age and gender data. Because of this, the total numbers reported for age and gender did not match the total numbers of inquiries reported.

Note that 2024-25 was the first year local authorities were asked to report age and gender data for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in the ASP NMDS, as well as for inquires undertaken with the use of investigatory powers.

Users should also be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

Two local authorities were unable to report age and gender for inquiries without investigatory powers in Q1. Combined size of local authorities affected: <5%.

Another local authority was unable to accurately report their number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q1 to Q3, and noted those figures were likely to be an over-estimate. (See data quality notes for numbers of inquiries undertaken with and without the use of investigatory powers – indicators 2 and 3). This also affected the numbers they reported for age and gender for those inquiries. The local authority improved the accuracy of their reporting on number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q4. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

Ethnicity reported for inquiries (indicator 14)

Not all local authorities were able to report an ethnicity for all inquiries reported. Because of this, the data presented was an approximation of the situation at the national level, and the total numbers reported for ethnicity did not match the total numbers of inquiries reported.

Note that 2024-25 was the first year local authorities were asked to report ethnicity data for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in the ASP NMDS, as well as for inquires undertaken with the use of investigatory powers.

Users should also be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

One local authority was unable to report on ethnicity and reported the ethnicity for all inquiries undertaken in 2024-25 as ‘not known’. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

One local authority was unable to report ethnicity for people who were the subject of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers in Q1. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

One local authority was unable to supply a full breakdown of ethnicity data and was only able to report ethnicities as either ‘white’ or ‘not known’. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

Another local authority was unable to accurately report their number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q1 to Q3, and noted those figures were likely to be an over-estimate. (See data quality notes for numbers of inquiries undertaken with and without the use of investigatory powers – indicators 2 and 3). This also affected the numbers they reported for ethnicity for inquiries without the use of investigatory powers. The local authority improved the accuracy of their reporting on number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q4. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

Primary client group reported for inquiries (indicator 17)

There were challenges for some local authorities to accurately report the primary client group, particularly for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers. For this reason, the data presented on primary client group was an approximation of the situation at national level. It also means the total numbers reported for primary client group reported for inquiries did not match the total numbers of inquiries reported.

Note that 2024-25 was the first year local authorities were asked to report primary client group for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in the ASP NMDS, as well as for inquires undertaken with the use of investigatory powers.

Users should also be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

For primary client group reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers: two local authorities were unable to report on the primary client group in some or all of the quarters of 2024-25. This contributes to why the total numbers reported for primary client group for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers did not match the total reported number of inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers (indicator 2). Combined size of the local authorities affected: <5%.

Another local authority was unable to accurately report their number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q1 to Q3, and noted those figures were likely to be an over-estimate. (See data quality notes for numbers of inquiries undertaken with and without the use of investigatory powers – indicators 2 and 3). This also affected the numbers they reported for primary client group for inquiries without the use of investigatory powers. The local authority improved the accuracy of their reporting on number of inquiries without the use of investigatory powers for Q4. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

For both types of inquiries, one local authority was unable to provide any further information where the primary client group was initially reported as ‘other’. Another local authority noted that within ‘other’ there were people who had first been reported on their system as children, and who had not had their primary client group reassessed since moving to adult services. Combined size of local authorities affected: 12%.

Reported actions taken following inquiries (indicators 10 and 11)

Some local authorities were not able to report a breakdown of all actions taken following inquiries, or faced challenges in providing a breakdown which led to them reporting a large share as ‘pending/unknown’. For this reason, the data presented on actions taken following inquiries was an approximation of the situation at national level. It is also why the total reported numbers of actions taken following inquiries did not match the total reported numbers of inquiries undertaken.

Users should be aware of the following specific data quality notes:

For both kinds of inquiries, one LA noted that some the actions following inquiries that they reported in their own system could not be reported in the ASP NMDS, as they believed those actions did not fit within the existing ASP NMDS categories. Around 10% of their actions taken following inquiries were therefore missing from the reported national-level breakdown of actions taken. Size of local authority affected: 5-15%.

One local authority was unable to report any data on indicators 10 and 11. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

One local authority was unable to provide the breakdown of actions following inquiries and reported all their actions as ‘pending/unknown’. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

 A further local authority noted local challenges in gathering data on the actions taken following inquiries, which led to them reporting some of their actions as ‘pending/unknown’. Size of local authority affected: <5%.

Reported case conferences (indicator 4)

One local authority reported challenges in accurately reporting the numbers of initial and review case conferences held in 2024-25. Size of local authority affected: 5-15%.

Number of Adult Support and Protection Plans reported (indicator 8)

For the number of newly commencted Adult Support and Protection Plans (ASPPs) (indicator 8b in the 2024-25 ASP NMDS): there may be variation in how local authorities reported the numbers of newly commenced ASPPs, as mentioned in the main publication. The Scottish Government and Iriss plan to review this with ASP partnerships over the coming year to better understand the process of implementing ASPPs and how these are counted locally. This is part of our plans to work with ASP partnerships to improve the data collection, as mentioned in the future plans section of the main publication.

The total number of ASPPs (indicator 8a) was not reported on for 2024-25. Firstly, because the Scottish Government and Iriss updated the description of the indicator in the reporting template part-way through the year, after receiving feedback from some ASP partnerships that the original description was not sufficiently clear. Therefore, there was not a full year of data reported under a consistent definition. It is hoped the update to the definition has resolved the issue and that data can be reported consistently in 2025-26. Secondly, we are aware there may be variation in how local authorities report ongoing ASPPs following review case conferences. The Scottish Government and Iriss plan to review this with partnerships over the coming year to better understand the process of implementing ASPPs and how these are counted, as noted in the Future Plans section of the main publication.

Reported protection orders granted (indicator 9)

The number of protection orders granted (indicator 9b) was reported on in the main publication.

The number of protection orders applied for (indicator 9a) was not reported on, as not all local authorities consistently reported protection orders applied for that were not granted.