Section 2 - 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 local authority may need to intervene, or to provide support or any other assistance to the adult or any carer. Inquiries may be carried out with or without the use of investigatory powers. There is more information in the glossary of the accompanying technical report.

The statistics in this section relate to the numbers of inquiries reported to have been conducted during 2025-26. The number of inquiries reported in this section will not equal the number of referrals presented in section 1 - referrals. Firstly, not all ASP referrals a local authority received in 2025-26 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.

An individual person may have been the subject of more than one inquiry during the year. If that was the case, the type of inquiry, primary harm type and primary location of harm may have been recorded differently for each inquiry, depending on its details.

Number of inquiries

Across Scotland, there were a total of 51,373 inquiries reported as being undertaken in 2025-26. This was a rate of 1,101 per 100,000 people aged 16+. This is an increase of 9% from 2024-25, when a total of 47,314 inquiries were reported (a rate of 1,017 per 100,000 people aged 16+).

Of the inquiries reported as being undertaken in 2025-26, 36,554 (71%) were inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers, which equates to 783 per 100,000 people aged 16+. And 14,819 (29%) were inquiries undertaken with the use investigatory powers, which equates to 317 per 100,000 people aged 16+. This shows an increase in the total reported numbers of inquiries both with and without investigatory powers compared to the previous year. The reported number of inquiries without investigatory powers increased by 7% from 2024-25 (from 34,174) and the reported number of inquiries with investigatory powers increased by 13% (from 13,140).

Notes on data quality

It should be noted that, as in 2024-25, there is an inconsistent approach across local authorities to the recording of inquiries being with or without investigatory powers. A national working group has developed guidance on the definition of investigatory powers and shared it with local authorities in the summer of 2026. This will likely improve the statistics in this section in future years.

It should also be noted that one local authority in 2025-26 was still under-reporting the number of inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers. This affects the split of inquiries with and without the use of investigatory powers, so the statistics presented for 2025-26 are an approximation of the situation at national level. However, as this was consistent with 2024-25, the numbers between years are comparable.

There is more information in the accompanying technical report.

Primary type of harm reported for inquiries

The ASP National Minimum Dataset (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. However, it is a way of capturing the primary harm type cited on the ASP referral or identified through initial inquiries.

Where local authorities thought the primary harm type did not fit within one of the existing categories in the ASP NMDS, they could report ‘other’ and provide further details. A list of the definitions of the primary harm types can be found in the glossary in the accompanying technical report.

The statistics presented here are on the breakdown of reported primary type of harm for inquiries undertaken. An individual person may have been the subject of more than one inquiry during 2025-26. When this happened, those inquiries may have been reported with different primary types of harm, depending on the details of each inquiry.

It should be noted that there are some challenges for local authorities to record the primary harm type, in particular for inquiries undertaken without investigatory powers. For this reason, the total numbers for primary harm type reported in this section may not match the numbers given in the sub-section on total numbers of inquiries.

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

The most common primary harm type recorded for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2025-26 was physical harm (30%), followed by ‘Other’ (15%) and then self-neglect (14%) (figure 2).

Where local authorities thought the primary harm type did not fit within one of the existing categories in the ASP NMDS, they could record ‘Other’ and provide further details. More than half of all harm types reported as ‘Other’ for inquiries without investigatory powers in 2025-26 were reported as ‘unknown’, or ‘not recorded’. The next most common were ‘mental health’ and ‘welfare concern’.

Figure 2: Physical harm was the most common primary harm type reported for inquiries without investigatory powers in 2025-26, at 30%.

Bar chart showing the percentage of primary type of harm reported for inquiries without investigatory powers in 2025-26.

Notes on data quality and comparison to previous year

In 2025-26, there was a general improvement in the quality of the data returned by local authorities compared to the previous year (2024-25), with fewer of them identifying challenges in recording or reporting a primary harm type. However, some challenges did remain. One local authority’s data has been excluded from the statistics on inquiries without the use of investigatory powers in 2025-26. This is because a change in how they collected the data made their return inconsistent with the other local authorities. Because of this, comparisons with the statistics from 2024-25 on inquiries without investigatory powers have not been made. There is more information in the accompanying technical report.

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

For inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2025-26, the most common primary harm types reported were physical harm (21%), self-neglect (20%) and financial or material harm (15%) (figure 3).

These were the same three most common primary harm types reported for inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2024-25, when the proportions were physical harm 22%, self-neglect 17% and financial or material harm 16%.

More than half of all types of harm reported as ‘Other’ were reported as ‘unknown’ or ‘not recorded’. This was followed by ‘mental health’ and ‘institutional harm’.

Figure 3: Physical harm was the most common primary harm type reported for inquiries undertaken with the use investigatory powers in 2025-26, at 21%.

Bar chart showing the percentage of primary type of harm reported for inquiries with investigatory powers in 2025-26.

Self-inflicted harms

It is worth noting that self-inflicted harms made up a substantial proportion of the primary harm types reported for both types of inquiries in 2025-26. If self-neglect and self-harm are combined into one ‘self-inflicted harm’ category, then 24% of inquiries without investigatory powers were for self-inflicted harm, making it the second most common primary harm type after physical harm (30%).

For inquiries with investigatory powers, self-inflicted harm types accounted for 28% of inquiries, making self-inflicted harm the most common harm type, ahead of physical harm (21%). Self-inflicted harm types were also the most common primary harm types reported for inquiries with investigatory powers (when grouped together) in 2024-25, at 26%.

Primary location of harm reported for inquiries

The primary location of the harm is the main location where the harm is recorded as having occurred, in the case of each inquiry. This does not mean that harm occurred exclusively at that location.

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 2025-26. Where this was the case, those inquiries may have been reported as being at the same location or different primary locations, depending on the details of each inquiry.

It should be noted that there are challenges for some local authorities to record the primary location of harm, in particular for inquiries without investigatory powers. For this reason, the total numbers for location of harm reported in this section may not match the numbers given in the section on total numbers of inquiries.

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

For inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2025-26 the most common location reported was the own home of the person who was the subject of the inquiry (49%) (figure 4). This was followed by care home (28%) and a public place (6%). These three most common locations were the same in 2024-25, when the proportions were ‘own home’ 48%, care home 30% and public place 6%.

Figure 4: ‘Own home’ was the primary location of harm reported for almost half of all inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers in 2025-26, at 49%.

Bar chart showing the percentage of primary location of harm reported for inquiries without investigatory powers in 2025-26.

In figure 4 above, ‘Sheltered housing/other’ was the category ‘Sheltered housing or other supported accommodation’ in the ASP NMDS.

Notes on data quality and comparison to previous year

There were challenges for some local authorities to accurately report the primary location of harm in 2025-26, particularly for inquiries undertaken without the use of investigatory powers. For this reason, the statistics presented are an approximation of the situation at national level. In addition, two local authorities were unable to provide any data in 2025-26. The same two were also unable to provide this data in 2024-25, which allows the comparison between years to be made. There is more information in the accompanying technical report.

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

For inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2025-26, the most common location of harm was also the subject’s ‘own home’ (64%), followed by care home (17%) and a public place (6%) (figure 5). These three most common locations were the same in 2024-25, when the proportions were ‘own home’ 63%, care home 17% and public place 5%.

Figure 5: ‘Own home’ was the primary location of harm reported in almost two thirds of all inquiries undertaken with the use of investigatory powers in 2025-26, at 64%.

Bar chart showing percentage of primary location of harm reported for inquiries with investigatory powers in 2025-26.

In figure 5 above, ‘Sheltered housing/other’ was the category ‘Sheltered housing or other supported accommodation’ in the ASP NMDS.