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

Inquiries

After receiving an Adult Support and Protection (ASP) referral, a local authority will decide whether to carry out an inquiry. The purpose of an inquiry is to ascertain whether adults are at risk of harm, and whether the council may need to intervene in order to protect the person’s wellbeing, property, or financial affairs.

The number of inquiries reported in this chapter will not equal the number of referrals presented in the previous chapter. Firstly, not all ASP referrals a local authority received will have resulted in an inquiry. Secondly, some local authorities reported a total number of ASP referrals received, some of which may have been multiple referrals related to the same person or incident, but which may have led to only one inquiry being undertaken.

Note that the figures in this chapter relate to the number of inquiries undertaken, not the number of people who were the subject of an inquiry. An individual person may have been the subject of more than one inquiry during 2024-25.

Inquiries may be undertaken out with or without the use of investigatory powers. Any use of investigatory powers is triggered through the section 4 duty to inquire under the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act, 2007 (the ASP Act). For more information, please see the Glossary in the accompanying technical report.

Number of inquiries

Across Scotland, there were a total of 47,314 inquiries reported as being undertaken in 2024-25. This was a rate of 1,017 inquiries reported per 100,000 people aged 16+.

Of those total reported inquiries, 34,174 inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers were reported. This equates to 735 per 100,000 people aged 16+. A further 13,140 inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers were reported. This equates to 283 per 100,000 people aged 16+.

The data by quarter can be found in the accompanying data tables.

Data quality notes:

Note that there was an inconsistent approach across local authorities to the reporting of inquiries undertaken with and without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25. 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 in this section in future years.

The total number of inquiries, and the number of inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers, reported for 2024-25 are likely to be over-estimates due to reporting challenges in a small number of local authorities. For more information, please see the data and methodology chapter in the accompanying technical report.

Primary type of harm reported for inquiries

The ASP NMDS includes the primary type of harm that people who were the subject of an inquiry were reported to be at risk of or understood to be experiencing. This does not mean they were not exposed to other harm types simultaneously; it is only the primary type of harm cited on the ASP referral or identified through initial inquiries. Where local authorities thought the harm type did not fit within one of the existing categories in the ASP NMDS, they could report ‘other’ and provide further details.

Note that the data presented here is on the breakdown of reported primary type of harm, for the inquiries undertaken. An individual person may have been the subject of more than one inquiry during 2024-25. If a person was the subject of more than one inquiry during 2024-25 those inquiries may have been reported with different primary types of harm, depending on the details of each inquiry.

Primary type of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers

A primary type of harm was reported for 31,187 inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25. Within those, the most commonly reported primary type of harm was ‘physical harm’ (29%, or 9,139 inquiries), followed by ‘other’ (17%, or 5,285 inquiries) and ‘self neglect’ (12%, or 3,894 inquiries) (figure 3).

Figure 3: Physical harm was the most common primary type of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25, at 29%.

Percentage of primary type of harm reported for the 13,187 inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers where a primary type of harm was reported in 2024-25.

The numbers and percentages for primary type of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers, for all categories, are available in the accompanying data tables.

Among the local authorities who were able to report further details, more than half of all the types of harm reported as ‘other – please specify’ for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25 were further categorised as either ‘other’ or ‘not recorded’. Also commonly reported as types of harm within ‘other – please specify’ were ‘mental health’ and ‘welfare concern’.

Primary type of harm reported for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers

A primary type of harm was reported for 13,146 inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25. Within those, the most commonly reported primary type of harm was physical harm (22%, or 2,830 inquiries),followed by self neglect (17%, or 2,280 inquiries) and ‘financial or material harm’ (16%, or 2,097 inquiries) (figure 4).

Figure 4: Physical harm was the most common primary type of harm reported for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25, at 22%.

Percentage of primary type of harm reported for the 13,146 inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers where a primary type of harm was reported in 2024-25.

The numbers and percentages for primary type of harm reported for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers, for all categories, are available in the accompanying data tables.

Among the local authorities who were able to report further details, more than half of all the primary types of harm reported as ‘other – please specify’ for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers were further categorised as ‘mental health’. Other primary types of harm that were commonly reported within ‘other – please specify’ were ‘other’ and ‘institutional harm’.

Self-inflicted harms as primary harm type reported for inquiries

It is worth noting that self-inflicted harms (self neglect and self harm) made up a large proportion of the harm types reported for inquiries in 2024-25.

If self neglect and self harm were combined, then 21% of the inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers had self-inflicted harm as the primary type of harm reported. This made self-inflicted harms the second-most common primary type of harm reported, after physical harm (29%).

For inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers, self-inflicted harms (self neglect and self harm) were reported as the primary type of harm in 26% of the inquiries undertaken. This made self-inflicted harms the most common primary type of harm reported, ahead of physical harm (22%).

A list of the definitions of primary type of harm can be found in the Glossary in the the accompanying technical report.

Data quality notes:

Not all local authorities were able to report a primary type of harm for all reported inquiries undertaken in 2024-25. Because of this, the total numbers of inquiries presented in this section do not match the total numbers of inquiries reported in the previous section.

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 is an approximation of the situation at national level. Also, one local authority was unable to provide further information for any inquiries where the primary type of harm was initially reported as ‘other’. Please see the data and methodology chapter in the accompanying technical report for more information.

Primary location of harm reported for inquiries

The primary location of harm is the main location where the harm was reported as occurring. This does not mean that the harm occurred exclusively at this location. Where local authorities thought the primary location of harm did not fit within one of the existing categories in the ASP NMDS, they could report ‘other’ and provide further details.

Note that the data presented here is the breakdown of reported primary location of harm for the inquiries undertaken. An individual person may have been the subject of more than one inquiry during 2024-25. If a person was the subject of more than one inquiry during 2024-25 those inquiries may have been reported as being at the same location or different primary locations, depending on the details of each inquiry.

Primary location of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers

A primary location of harm was reported for 29,549 inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25. Within those, the most commonly reported primary location of harm was the ‘own home’ of the person who was the subject of the inquiry, at 48% (or 14,255 inquiries) (figure 5). This was followed by care homes (30%, or 8,863 inquiries) and public places (6%, or 1,882 inquiries).

Figure 5: ‘Own home’ was the primary location of harm reported for nearly half (48%) of the inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25.

Percentage of primary location of harm reported for the 29,549 inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25 where a primary location was reported.

The numbers and percentages for primary location of harm reported for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers, for all categories, are available in the accompanying data tables.

Among the local authorities who were able to report further details, where the primary location of harm for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers was initially reported as ‘other – please specify’, the majority of locations were further categorised as ‘not recorded’.

Primary location of harm reported for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers

A primary location of harm was reported for 13,137 inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25. Within those, the most common primary location of harm reported was the person’s own home (63%, or 8,238 inquiries), followed by care home (17%, or 2,286 inquiries) and public places (5%, or 720 inquiries) (figure 6).

Figure 6: ‘Own home’ was the primary location of harm reported in almost two thirds (63%) of the inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25.

Percentage of primary location of harm reported for the 13,137 inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25 where a primary location was reported.

The numbers and percentages for primary location of harm reported for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers, for all categories, are available in the accompanying data tables.

Among the local authorities who were able to report further details, where the primary location of harm for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers was initially reported as ‘other – please specify’, the majority of primary locations were further categorised as ‘not recorded/not yet known’..

Data quality notes:

Not all local authorities were able to report a primary location of harm for all reported inquiries undertaken in 2024-25. Because of this, the total numbers of inquiries presented in this section do not match the total numbers of inquiries reported in the earlier section.

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 is an approximation of the situation at national level. Also, one local authority was unable to provide further information for any inquiries where the primary location of harm was initally reported as ‘other’. See the data and methodology chapter in the accompanying technical report for more information.