Scottish Government People's Panel 2026-27 Event 1: Reform of the National Performance Framework

Key findings

This report presents findings from the first meeting of the Scottish Government People’s Panel 2026-27, a research panel of 40 members of the public recruited to broadly reflect the diversity of Scotland’s population. The session was held on 26 February 2026 and involved a full day of facilitated discussions on the reform of the National Performance Framework (NPF). This was the first time that the draft proposals for a reformed NPF, including the proposed National Outcomes, were shared with members of the public. The aim of the discussion was to assess the clarity, relevance, and credibility of the proposals from a public perspective. A total of 37 panel members attended all or part of the session.

Awareness and understanding of the NPF

• Most panel members had not previously heard of the NPF, including those who considered themselves well-informed or interested in government and policy topics.
• Many supported the idea of a national wellbeing vision but were sceptical that changing the framework alone would deliver improvements without visible action, accountability for progress, and robust measures of progress.

Public priorities, concerns and reactions to the proposed National Outcomes

• Panel members described experiencing poorer living conditions and public services. This included areas like health, social care, community infrastructure, education, housing, safety, and rising costs. Many expressed a pervasive sense of frustration, lost opportunity, and reduced confidence in progress.
• Most felt the six proposed National Outcomes reflected what matters in daily life.
• The proposals for cross-cutting principles on fairness and equality were considered to be especially relevant to members’ experiences and were seen as fundamental.
• However, some language (for example, ‘future impact,’ ‘our place in the world,’ and the present-tense phrasing of outcomes) felt unclear or confusing.

Expectations for delivery, accountability and communication

• Panel members asked for clearer linkage from National Outcomes to improved service delivery, including clear responsibility for improvements. They wanted communications that build hope without “spin”, clear and accessible presentation of progress data, and suggested that a more digital, citizen-facing approach could strengthen public understanding and government accountability.
• Overall, panel members supported the idea of a national vision. However, they did not believe the current articulation would meaningfully influence real‑world change without major improvements in its visibility, clarity, and transparency.
• Members strongly favoured changing the name of the NPF, finding ‘National Performance Framework’ overly technical and unclear. ‘Performance’ and ‘Framework’ were seen as misleading, while names including ‘Scotland’ or referencing future wellbeing felt more intuitive, though some worried about political or cultural misinterpretation.
• Most were interested in hearing about progress towards the NPF outcomes but found current communications about the NPF inaccessible, too technical, and hard to find. They asked for clearer, more transparent updates – showing both achievements and failings. These needed to be presented in plain language, through multiple media channels, and supported by visual and local-level information.
• Members stressed that while most people are unlikely to follow the NPF closely, the public should be able to understand and care about it. They valued a national vision but were concerned it would risk becoming a symbolic or “tick‑box” exercise without real accountability and ongoing communication.

What this means for Government

• Panel members supported the idea of a national wellbeing vision but awareness of the current NPF was low. They felt that the reformed outcomes reflect what matters in everyday life but said that some of the language and the name were unclear or too technical.
• Panel members felt that a revised framework will only matter if it is linked to visible delivery, accountability, and improved public services. They emphasised declining living conditions, frustration with lack of progress, and the need for transparent data and honest communications to build belief and trust.
• The national vision needs to be more accessible and meaningful, supported by clear, citizen‑facing communication. Panel members called for: simpler language; more digital and local-level updates; and a balance of achievements and challenges. Local engagement is often more trusted than national messaging.
• Based on these discussions, five recommendations emerged for the reform of the NPF: make the link between the NPF and government delivery more explicit; clarify language and concepts; make fairness and equality more visible in reporting and implementation; modernise reporting and presentation; and build trust through ongoing public engagement.