This chapter presents the monitoring and evaluation framework for implementing the recommendations of Malta’s National Skills Strategy. It highlights the importance of systematic monitoring and reporting for enhancing policy effectiveness, accountability, and public trust. The chapter explains the role of indicators, proposes a set of indicators to measure inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts, and outlines a process for tracking implementation progress.
A National Skills Strategy and Action Plan for Malta
Abstract
Monitoring and evaluation are key steps in the policy cycle, as long as they provide real-time, accurate and reliable information about the progress of implementation and the uptake of policy measures among target groups. Moreover, developing a monitoring and evaluation framework can improve policy outcomes and public trust by enhancing accountability for the use of public funds, improving understanding of the link between public interventions and their results, and facilitating policy learning over time to make future policies more efficient and effective (OECD, 2023[1]).
However, despite the importance of monitoring and reporting, many countries may face challenges when it comes to establishing an effective framework. These include, among others, limited technical capacity, low quality of available data, the lack of an integrated evidence management system, challenges with whole‑of-government co‑operation, and ineffective use of reporting findings (OECD, 2020[2]).
This chapter provides a monitoring and evaluation framework for implementing the recommendations for Malta’s National Skills Strategy, emphasising the importance of systematic monitoring and reporting in improving policy effectiveness, accountability, and public trust. It describes the importance of indicators and the proposed process for measuring implementation progress.
A monitoring and evaluation framework should be built on indicators that track whether interventions are on course to achieve desired outputs and outcomes at each stage of the policy cycle (e.g. design, funding, uptake), and ideally describe data collection responsibilities, sources and timelines, aligned with the policy being implemented (ILO, 2018[3]; OECD, 2021[4]). Overall, identifying suitable indicators early allows policymakers to map potential data sources and secure the most reliable evidence, which is vital for assessing policy impact (OECD, 2020[2]; OECD, 2021[5]).
Measures as part of the monitoring and evaluation framework could be categorised according to four types of indicators:
Input indicators refer to the financial, human and other resources (e.g. ICT, training of policymakers) allocated for the recommendations to be transformed from an idea to an implemented reality.
Output indicators capture how many activities are produced and how many entities (e.g. individuals, companies, education providers, stakeholders) are participating in or making use of the recommendation once it is in operation.
Outcome indicators reflect quantifiable means of discerning whether participation in the activity has had its desired effect on the target population and to what degree.
Impact indicators track the effect of the activity on the wider population (e.g. spillover effect, positive externalities).
Together, these indicators are intended to quantify and track progress from each proposed recommendation to its intended impact. The relationship between the different types of indicators is depicted in Figure 3.1.
A proposed set of indicators to measure inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts for the 30 recommendations of the National Skills Strategy are outlined in the tables found in Annex 3.A. The indicators could directly inform the Maltese Government’s monitoring and evaluation of the recommendations through the processes and allocation of responsibilities outlined in the next section.
It should also be noted that the TSI project itself includes indicators relating to impact, outcomes, and nine outputs, as presented in the Indicative Logical Framework Matrix in the detailed project description. For example, impact indicators capture increases in the share of workers participating in training, both in the overall economy and in the maritime sector, as well as reductions in labour market tightness, measured by the number of vacancies per jobseeker. These indicators complement those presented below, which are more specific and directly tailored to the 30 recommendations.
Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the National Skills Strategy is a process that involves collecting data, analysing progress, disseminating the results and improving interventions. While monitoring supports ongoing, day-to-day internal management and course correction, evaluation provides periodic assessments to inform strategic policy revision and ensure public accountability.
Collecting the data
The input, output, outcome, and impact indicators, as described above and presented in Annex 3.A, provide a solid starting point for Malta to collect data for its evaluations of the National Skills Strategy. Furthermore, to ensure that the required information will be collected, clear responsibilities for data collection should be assigned, with frequency linked to the pace of implementation. This ensures that information is updated regularly by those closest to delivery (OECD, 2021[4]).
It is recommended that data collection for monitoring the relevant indicators be carried out by the entities already responsible for collecting such data. Overall, Malta should aim to leverage existing data collection systems to align with current policy frameworks, avoiding duplication by using data already gathered where possible (OECD, 2020[2]).
However, where new data are required, responsibility could lie with the entities leading the implementation of the 30 recommendations – i.e. the policy owners described in Chapter 2. As the lead implementers, they are likely to have the most comprehensive overview of progress and be best placed to collect the necessary data.
Analysing progress
The review of the Action Plan will be a continuous process throughout the ten‑year implementation period. It is recommended that Malta compile and analyse all available data and conduct in-depth evaluations of implementation progress three times during this period: at the end of Phase 1 (2026‑2027), Phase 2 (2028‑2030), and Phase 3 (2031‑2035). The interim evaluations (Phases 1 and 2) would help identify any adjustments required to the actions or timelines for subsequent phases, while the final evaluation at the end of Phase 3 would provide a comprehensive assessment of outcomes and overall effectiveness.
A key consideration for Malta is whether these evaluations should be conducted internally or externally. Commissioning external evaluations could provide an independent and impartial assessment of progress, thereby strengthening credibility, transparency, and stakeholder confidence. External evaluators may also bring specialised methodological expertise, international benchmarking experience, and a degree of objectivity that can help identify systemic issues or blind spots that internal actors might overlook. However, this approach would entail additional financial costs and may require time for procurement, onboarding, and familiarisation with the policy context, which could affect timelines.
By contrast, internal evaluations can be more cost-effective, allow for closer alignment with policy processes, and enable faster access to administrative data and institutional knowledge. They may also facilitate more continuous monitoring and iterative learning throughout implementation. Nonetheless, internal assessments can be perceived as less impartial and may face constraints related to capacity, resources, or institutional incentives, which could affect their perceived legitimacy or analytical depth.
Malta already has mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate government strategies. As described in Recommendation 30, the Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (PMED) within MEYR is mandated to monitor and assess government strategies and has substantial expertise in policy evaluation and evidence‑based analysis. Since the National Skills Strategy, once adopted, will be part of the strategic documents within the Ministry for Education, PMED will have a clear role in the evaluation process. Typically, PMED collects information throughout implementation and conducts an evaluation at the end of the evaluation period, but it can also undertake interim reviews. In this context, it is recommended that PMED conduct the evaluation at the end of Phase 2 in 2030, coinciding with the midpoint of implementation, and again at the conclusion of Phase 3 in 2035.
Moreover, the NSC could play a key role in overseeing the implementation of the National Skills Strategy, given its leading role in the strategy’s development and its responsibility for implementing many of the recommendations. For this reason, it is recommended that the NSC conduct the evaluation at the end of Phase 1 in 2027.
Overall, both the NSC and PMED can hold other policy owners responsible for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the recommendations assigned to them. Moreover, since the NSC is also involved in the monitoring and evaluation of sectoral Skills Action Plans, such as for the maritime sector, it can adapt and refine processes with a view to extending best practices across sectors, as well as ensure alignment with the objectives of the National Skills Strategy.
In its evaluations, the NSC and PMED could assess the implementation of the recommendations according to various criteria that together provide a holistic picture of the success of the implementation (OECD, 2021[4]). The evaluation should consider the following six criteria by addressing these six questions:
Relevance: Is the policy measure doing the right things? Are objectives still aligned with needs?
Coherence: How well does the policy measure fit with other policies or intervention levels?
Effectiveness: Is the policy measure achieving its objectives?
Efficiency: How well are resources being used? Can more be done with the same resources or can less input be used to achieve the same output?
Impact: What difference does the policy measure make? Is there enough added value to continue?
Sustainability: Will the benefits last?
Disseminating and using results
Disseminating evaluation results is critical to building support for the use of these results to inform future policy. This may involve producing evaluation reports, reviews, or policy briefs tailored to different stakeholders as well as direct discussions between evaluators and the target audiences of the evaluation (OECD, 2021[4]). Communications should clearly highlight key results, recommendations, good practices, and their relevance to stakeholders’ roles. To this end, after conducting the evaluations, the NSC and PMED will be responsible for disseminating the evaluation results to the relevant government bodies, social partners, and education and training providers.
Building on dissemination, it is essential that evaluation findings are systematically integrated into policy development and revision processes. This requires establishing formal feedback loops through which the NSC and PMED ensure that lessons learnt, evidence on effectiveness, and identified implementation challenges inform decision making, budget allocations, and the design of subsequent measures. Embedding such mechanisms can support adaptive policymaking, allowing authorities to refine actions, reallocate resources where impact is greatest, and discontinue measures that prove ineffective. Over time, the structured use of evaluation results can strengthen accountability, promote a culture of evidence‑based governance, and enhance the overall coherence and responsiveness of the skills system.
References
[3] ILO (2018), Guide on Measuring Decent Jobs for Youth - Monitoring, evaluation and learning in labour market programmes, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_627311.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2025).
[1] OECD (2023), Policy monitoring and evaluation, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/public-policy-monitoring-and-evaluation.html (accessed on 9 December 2025).
[4] OECD (2021), Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en.
[5] OECD (2021), Incentives for SMEs to Invest in Skills: Lessons from European Good Practices, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1eb16dc7-en.
[2] OECD (2020), Improving Governance with Policy Evaluation: Lessons From Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/89b1577d-en.
This Annex presents a proposed set of indicators to measure inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts for the 30 recommendations of the National Skills Strategy. The indicators have been selected in light of the descriptions above and could directly inform the Maltese Government’s monitoring and evaluation of the recommendations through the processes and allocation of responsibilities outlined in the next section.
The indicators are organised by the eight priority topics of the National Skills Strategy: