While much of the media coverage of the launch of the Northern Ireland Executive’s latest Programme for Government (PfG) rightly focused on the specific, quantifiable targets (or lack thereof), a complementary “wellbeing framework”, with dozens of regularly updated metrics, has received little comment. The PfG Wellbeing Framework has the potential for journalists and others to regularly monitor and scrutinise the executive’s progress on ten named “strategic domains” across three “missions”. First Minister Michelle O’Neill explained to fellow MLAs at the tabling of ... Read more...
While much of the media coverage of the launch of the Northern Ireland Executive’s latest Programme for Government (PfG) rightly focused on the specific, quantifiable targets (or lack thereof), a complementary “wellbeing framework”, with dozens of regularly updated metrics, has received little comment. The PfG Wellbeing Framework has the potential for journalists and others to regularly monitor and scrutinise the executive’s progress on ten named “strategic domains” across three “missions”.
First Minister Michelle O’Neill explained to fellow MLAs at the tabling of the PfG at the Northern Ireland Assembly on 4 March 2025:
“As we continue the vital work of delivery, we want to be open about how we do. That is why we have developed a well-being framework that looks at progress under our missions of ‘People’, ‘Planet’, ‘Prosperity’ and that cross-cutting commitment to peace. We are committed to improving the well-being or quality of life of everyone across our society by keeping track of that information, so that we can always understand where we are, monitor our progress and address the things that matter most.”
The First Minister continued by saying that they will publish annual reports, presumably with reference to the wellbeing framework.
Origins of the wellbeing framework
The PfG Wellbeing Framework is based on a concept of outcomes-based accountability (OBA), which essentially says that in a public policy arena, the focus of government is on outcomes as opposed to Ministerial objectives, with the foundation built on data science evidence.
The OBA concept became part of the design of the PfG a decade ago. As part of the public consultation exercise in preparation of the 2016 Programme for Government, this was explained to an audience of NICVA members at a session held on 20 June 2016, with presentations by Celine McStravick (Director, National Children’s Bureau Northern Ireland) and Joe Reynolds (Head of the Programme for Government team).
McStravick stated that the OBA approach required outcomes, indicators, measures, and action plans:
- Outcomes were “conditions of well-being”, which were positive, jargon free statements of wellbeing in plain language that people can understand
- Indicators were measures which helped quantify the achievement of an outcome
- Measures evaluate how well a programme agency or service system was working which involved a quantity question (how much did we do?), quality question (how well did we do it?), and the outcome for the service user (quantity and quality of effect)
She spoke about “turning the curve”, in that desired outcomes are being realised. For this, there are two layers of accountability: “population accountability” and “performance accountability”. This means that there is not an exclusive impact by political decision makers and civil service actors, but includes partnerships with the private and public sectors, community groups, and individuals.
Joe Reynolds explained that the application of OBA to the Programme for Government came about on the back of the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements, with an increased need for more collaborative working within the Northern Ireland Executive. He specifically cited the lack of measurement of impact in previous PfGs.
Applying the OBA elements described above, Reynolds displayed what a PfG framework could look like, with 14 outcomes, 42 indicators, measures, and key actions:
The Executive Office published a public consultation document that summarised the results of an initial consultation exercise. This listed the proposed 14 outcomes with indicators for each, which itself is neatly summarised in an (previously interactive) online document. (The 14 outcomes were reduced to 12 and further reduced to 9 in 2021.)
Positive peace versus negative peace
The Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP) is a global think tank headquartered in Australia. Its research includes the development of global and national indices, “calculating the economic cost of violence, analysing country level risk and fragility, and understanding Positive Peace”.
The IEP defines a “negative peace” as one in which there is an absence of violence, and there is no fear that violence will return at any point.
A “positive peace” is instead classified as one in which the structures, attitudes, and institutions that maintain peace within society are overhauled to create a sustainable long-term peace process in the aftermath of conflict.
The “Pillars of Peace” is IEP’s conceptual framework for understanding and describing the factors that create peaceful societies, defining the national characteristics that are most closely associated with peace (derived from its statistical analysis).
The Pillars of Peace is an eight-part taxonomy which consists of:
- a well-functioning government
- a sound business environment
- an equitable distribution of resources
- an acceptance of the rights of others
- good relations with neighbours
- free flow of information
- a high level of human capital
- low levels of corruption
A Positive Peace Index (PPI) for Northern Ireland?
The IEP produced a UK Peace Index (UKPI), indicating a measure “of the levels of peacefulness” within the UK from 2012 to 2022. The UKPI covers “police force areas” across the UK, resulting in a composite measure made up of five indicators: homicide, violent crime, weapons, public disorder and police. The UKPI overall score for Northern Ireland constituencies were as varied as in other UK regions.
While the UKPI is a helpful measure, it could be deemed more as an indicator of “negative peace” — the absence of violence — than a more encompassing Positive Peace Index.
Maurizio Liberante (an IEP Ambassador in Northern Ireland) considered how the approach of IEP’s Positive Peace Index could be used to shape public policy in Northern Ireland.
In the case of Northern Ireland and its peace process, Liberante argues that the IEP’s objectives of establishing a well-functioning government, acceptance of the rights of others, good relations with neighbours, and equitable distribution of resources all tie in with the Program for Government’s planned outcomes of creating an equal, healthy society in which citizens feel secure and respected.
Liberante suggested an alignment of the proposed 2021 Programme for Government (and its Outcomes Framework) and the Positive Peace Index:
“There is clear complementarity in which the PPI pillars themselves could act as pillars to a future Programme for Government.
“It would ensure that peace and stability considerations are integrated across various policy areas.”
2025 PfG through a PPI lens?
While the final version of the 2025 Programme for Government did not explicitly align the 8 IEP pillars with the 10 PfG “strategic domains”, their complementarity along with the quantifiable aspect of the corresponding 51 PfG indicators allows an objective, empirical analysis of progress (or regression).
For example, one of the ten PfG strategic domains is Living Peacefully: “We have a lasting peace, ensuring a stable and harmonious society for all”. This domain has four indicators:
- community relations
- shared community
- trust in the media
- trust in the Northern Ireland Assembly
You can click on the graphic shape for any of the indicators to be sent to a summary page with further links to the underlying statistic. In the case of the indicator, community relations, the percentage of respondents who think that relations between Protestants and Catholics are better now than they were five years ago is relatively stagnant at 40%, after a peak of near 60% reported in 2016.
The individual indicator pages provide information on the data source. In this case, it is the Good Relations Indicator Report. The most recent report, with data for 2013, was published by The Executive Office on 12 December 2024; so, there is a year-long gap in timeliness.
Nevertheless, you can get a bird’s eye view of all indicators against all 10 domains or 3 PfG missions. (“Peace” is listed as a mission, but not presented as such in the PfG document.) From here, you can click through any indicator graphic to learn more about recent data.
This at least provides journalists and others seeking to hold government to account on progress towards positive change, even in the absence of specific actions plans across the declared missions of the Programme for Government.
The PfG Wellbeing Framework has been well developed over the past ten years, to enable a strong semblance of the outcomes-based accountability that was envisaged in previous agreements to restore stability and effectiveness of Northern Ireland government. Although it may be more up to engaged individuals and communities to keep the pressure on meaningful action plans, which will include mutual participation and delivery.
Cross-published at Mr Ulster.
