Scotland’s National Performance Framework (NPF) is undergoing its most significant reform since 2018, with the Scottish Government proposing a shift to a smaller, clearer set of long‑term wellbeing outcomes, a stronger focus on cross‑cutting perspectives such as human rights and fairness, a refreshed and more coherent indicator set, and even the possibility of renaming the framework to improve public understanding. These changes follow parliamentary scrutiny and growing recognition that, while the NPF is a national wellbeing framework, its impact has been limited by inconsistent implementation, data gaps, and weak alignment with policy and budgeting. This blog sets out what is changing, why the reform matters, and what happens next as the Scottish Government prepares its final proposals for the next administration.
What is the National Performance Framework?
The National Performance Framework (NPF) is a strategic tool introduced by the Scottish Government in 2007 that “sets out a vision for the collective wellbeing of Scotland”. As noted by the Deputy First Minister (DFM) in February 2026:
“the NPF should influence decision making, policy design, and budgeting.”
It is intended to align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to ensure a balanced approach to economic, environmental, and social progress.
The NPF currently outlines eleven National Outcomes that articulate the kind of country the Scottish Government would like Scotland to be, with a focus on improving the lives of people in Scotland. These outcomes are measured by a set of 81 National Indicators, to “understand if we are moving in the right direction towards them” as explained by the Scottish Government.
The current NPF, including the full list of national indicators, has been archived and the Scottish Government is currently undertaking a review of the NPF and has produced draft NPF proposals.
Why the NPF is being reviewed
A Scottish Government review of the National Outcomes began in May 2022 as required by The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which states that the Scottish Government must review the National Outcomes every five years.
Analysis and development of proposed changes to the National Outcomes was followed by approval from Scottish Government Cabinet for the proposals. In May 2024 the Consultation with Parliament in connection with the Review of National Outcomes was laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers. More information about the proposed changes can be found in the SPICe Blog Evolving Goals: Insights into the National Performance Framework Review.
Following this report, the Finance and Public Administration Committee led the consideration of the proposed National Outcomes. Additionally, other committees considered evidence in their own remits.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee report and other committees’ reports and letters highlight both the strengths and the challenges of the proposed revisions. They raised issues remain around data gaps, integration, and implementation.
In addition, they also called for stronger alignment between policy, budgeting, and performance monitoring, underlining the importance of ensuring the NPF is more than just a strategic vision. For example, in its 2024 Response to the Review of Outcomes and Indicators, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee stated “there was evidence from this inquiry to suggest that the National Outcomes do not always inform policy and spending, and [we ask] the Scottish Government to provide examples of where the National Outcomes have informed policy and spending decisions”.
A committee debate on the revised outcomes was held in January 2025.
Following committees publishing their reports, and the evidence that was submitted and published during that time, including Carnegie UK’s report on how to embed the NPF across decision making, the Scottish Government decided to pause revision of the outcomes in favour of a more substantive review.
The Deputy First Minister shared a proposed updated NPF, as well as the reasoning for its change in approach, in a letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The letter was also sent to all Committees. The DFM explained that it had become:
“… clear that making changes to the existing national outcomes was not enough and that more fundamental change was needed. Scottish Ministers therefore decided to pause the implementation of the proposed national outcomes in favour of a more substantial reform programme.”
Out of the 15 committees, only one committee, Social Justice and Social Security responded to the Deputy First Minister’s letter. The Committee’s response highlighted that, given the stage in the Parliamentary Session, it has been impossible for it to take evidence, or to give the proposals as much consideration as the Committee would have liked. However, it did ask the Scottish Government to ensure that the revised NPF was clear, accessible, well‑supported, and consistently applied, with meaningful oversight, monitoring, and examples of real implementation. It also called for wider consultation, consideration of independent oversight, stronger cross‑cutting working, clear links to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the incorporation of learning from Wales’ approach to wellbeing and future‑generations legislation.
What the revised NPF proposes
The current review is not a full redesign but a “strategic update”, drawing from previous parliamentary scrutiny, evidence submitted during scrutiny, and international frameworks (in particular, the OECD Well-being Framework is highlighted by the Government as a foundation for the revised model). The review also draws from international experience from countries such as Canada and New Zealand. The review also incorporates advice from an NPF Expert Reform Advisory Group with the aim to include expertise from across sectors.
Cross‑cutting perspectives
The proposed model includes defined cross‑cutting perspectives, such as human rights, fairness, equality and Scotland’s place in the world. These perspectives are intended to guide how outcomes are applied across all populations and policy areas. Evidence submitted to the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s Inquiry into proposed National Outcomes stressed the need for these perspectives to meaningfully influence the design of indicators and the implementation plan. For example, the Scottish Human Rights Commission highlighted the need for human rights to be more explicitly embedded across outcomes, supported by intersectional data.
A potential name change
The Scottish Government is considering renaming the NPF to improve accessibility and public understanding, drawing on similar frameworks in Wales, New Zealand, Austria, and Germany. Options presented in the consultation documents include “Scotland’s Future”, “Scotland’s Wellbeing Framework”, “Scotland’s Wellbeing Goals”, or “How’s Scotland?” The findings of the previous FPAC inquiry on the review of the National Outcomes in 2024 indicated broad support for a name that communicates purpose more clearly and avoids the implication that the framework exists solely for performance management.
A smaller set of national outcomes
A key aspect of the reform is consolidating the 11 current Outcomes into six long‑term wellbeing outcomes, as opposed to the Scottish Government’s previous proposal of 13 Outcomes. The six proposed Outcomes are:
Connected, Healthy, Prosperous, Secure, Skilled, and Sustainable.
These broad, population-level outcomes reflect evidence gathered by the Scottish Government that national wellbeing frameworks are most effective when outcomes are fewer in number, easy to communicate, and allow policy areas to map onto them without creating silos.
During the January 2025 Committee debate on the review of national outcomes, the Convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee urged “the Scottish ministers to publish the proposed draft indicators alongside the proposed national outcomes to ensure greater transparency, consultation and scrutiny”. The Scottish Government has however stated that the indicator set will instead be “finalised in earnest when the outcomes are agreed”.
Measuring progress: the indicator reforms
A critical part of the NPF reform is the refresh of Scotland’s indicator set. The Scottish Government’s evidence states that new indicators must meet requirements for relevance, coherence, balance, technical quality and international alignment. This aligns with findings from previous committee inquiries that indicators should be more transparent, disaggregated, and better linked to decision‑making.
Work is underway on the indicator set by drawing from existing data collections and reporting frameworks. The Scottish Government states that the:
“streamlined NPF indicator set will be a subset of priority indicators reported in existing reporting frameworks and mechanisms, providing coherence across the reporting system.”
SPICe analysis presented in the blog ‘How is Scotland Performing?’ shows that five years after the indicators were introduced, 11 out of 81 still lacked data. This is in part due to the Scottish Government selecting indicators for data it wanted to measure, rather than data it could actually measure at that point. The Scottish Government has stated that for the new indicators, it plans to focus on data that is available.
The design will include input from NPF Technical Advisory Group and the Scottish Government Chief Statistician. This may be in part to address previous concerns raised by Volunteer Scotland that “the Government is not only marking its own homework but setting the questions” by not consulting more widely on specific indicators.
Why implementation matters
Across evidence sources, a central theme is that implementation, not design, is the main barrier to realising the NPF’s potential.
The Scottish Government has stated in the proposed NPF that to embed the NPF effectively, it must “fundamentally rethink how we hold organisations and leaders to account” so that national outcomes connect directly to operational delivery. The Scottish Government Public Services Reform Strategy similarly commits to redesigning accountability systems to reflect organisational contributions to outcomes.
The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee highlighted in its 2024 Letter from the Convener to Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government that:
“the implementation approach will be crucial to success.”
Additionally, evidence gathered during the FPAC review of the National Outcomes found strong stakeholder support for clearer roles, responsibilities and expectations across the public sector.
FPAC’s 2024 Report on the National Performance Framework: Review of National Outcomes highlighted persistent challenges in ensuring the NPF is fully embedded in Scottish Government strategies. Several major policy documents, including the Programme for Government, Scottish Budget and key sector strategies, were found to contain either no explicit or meaningful reference to the NPF, despite its status as Scotland’s overarching wellbeing framework. Evidence presented to the Committee concluded that visibility matters, and that until the NPF is consistently referenced and operationalised across Government, its influence will remain “patchy and mixed.”
What happens next?
The Scottish Government is currently running a three-month engagement phase. The project timeline and non-exhaustive list of organisations solicited can be found in the letter from the Deputy First Minister sent to all Committees in February 2026. The Scottish Government has specifically stated that it is “primarily seeking feedback from organisations across the public, third, and private sectors rather than individual members of the public as we are progressing with several targeted focus groups to gain specific feedback from public audiences”. The Government will use this feedback to prepare a final proposal for consideration by the next Parliament after the 2026 election.
If accepted, the revised NPF is expected to be debated in the Scottish Parliament following the summer recess, with the intention of reaffirming the Framework’s role in guiding public service reform and strategic decision‑making across Scotland.
Kelly Eagle, Senior Researcher, Financial Scrutiny Unit