The Jobs Again Reform in Greece

6. Conclusions and recommendations for refining the “Jobs Again” reform

Abstract

This chapter summarises the assessment of Greece’s “Jobs Again” reform and presents targeted recommendations across five key dimensions. While the reform strengthens accountability – particularly through the introduction of KPIs and a registry of training providers – challenges remain in ensuring the relevance of training, improving governance and institutional co‑ordination, and promoting equity. Recommendations include harmonising accreditation systems, strengthening learner feedback and pre-training assessment mechanisms, refining the use of KPIs, and improving co‑ordination among responsible agencies.

This report has assessed the “Jobs Again” reform, focusing on its quality assurance mechanism. The reform represents a significant shift towards performance-based accountability in Greece’s vocational training system, introducing a structured registry of eligible providers and key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure training outcomes. These measures aim to improve training quality, align education with labour market needs, and ensure public funds are directed towards effective programmes.

The reform introduces several positive changes, including a stronger focus on employability outcomes, enhanced provider accountability, and a digital platform to facilitate training access and monitoring. The use of employment and job retention rates as KPIs reinforces the objective of ensuring training leads to real workforce integration. Additionally, requiring providers to meet ISO quality standards adds another layer of assurance that training institutions maintain high delivery standards. The introduction of individual learning accounts (ILAs) also grants learners more autonomy in selecting courses, promoting lifelong learning and career adaptability.

However, several challenges remain, particularly in ensuring training relevance, refining performance evaluation, enhancing flexibility, and improving provider accountability mechanisms. The reliance on post-training employment metrics does not guarantee that training content aligns with labour market needs, and the absence of a structured pre-training assessment makes it difficult to measure actual skills progression. Additionally, the dual-layered quality assurance system under DYPA (Greece’s Public Employment Service) and EOPPEP (National Organisation for the Certification of Qualifications and Vocational Guidance) risks fragmenting oversight and increasing administrative burdens.

This section outlines key recommendations that could help refine the reform, making it more adaptable, equitable, and results-driven. Each recommendation is mapped to one of the five dimensions introduced earlier-Ensuring Minimum Standards, Ensuring Student Participation in Quality Learning, Measuring Training Outcomes and Long-term Impact, Performance-based Monitoring, and Co‑ordination and Governance-so that the guidance directly addresses the distinct areas of improvement identified in the analysis.

Dimension 1: Ensuring Minimum Standards

Recommendation 1.1: Operate a Unified System of Accreditation for Initial Accreditation of Education Organisations

A key issue in the current reform is the fragmentation of quality assurance mechanisms due to the dual-layered accreditation system between EOPPEP (under the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sport) and DYPA (under the Ministry of Labour and Social Security).

Currently, EOPPEP oversees the initial accreditation of training providers, setting the baseline for participation in publicly funded programmes. The “Jobs Again” reform introduces additional quality requirements under DYPA, including ISO certifications and performance-based KPIs to remain in the registry. While these measures aim to enhance training relevance and accountability, they create overlapping responsibilities, regulatory inconsistencies, and increased administrative burdens for providers.

Similar to Singapore’s single accreditation process under SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and France’s Qualiopi certification, Greece should consolidate its accreditation requirements into a single, coherent framework. This would eliminate overlapping responsibilities between DYPA and EOPPEP, reducing confusion for training providers and improving regulatory clarity.

Leveraging DYPA’s digital platform, the accreditation process should be digitised to enable real-time data sharing between regulatory bodies, training providers, and employers. This integration would support more efficient monitoring, reduce administrative delays, and ensure that quality assurance processes are transparent and accessible.

Recommendation 1.2: Improve the Use of ISO Standards in Accreditation Procedures

ISO standards can play a valuable role in the accreditation of adult learning providers, as seen in Austria and Germany. However, their effective application requires careful selection of the appropriate standard and the establishment of clear guidance mechanisms to ensure alignment with policy objectives. While ISO 9001 is widely used as a general-purpose quality management system, it primarily focuses on customer satisfaction rather than educational effectiveness or labour market relevance. As a result, high participant satisfaction may not necessarily indicate alignment with national workforce strategies or government priorities.

To better address the specific needs of training providers, Greece could consider alternative ISO standards that offer a more tailored approach to educational quality assurance. For instance, ISO 21001 – Educational Organisation Management Systems is designed specifically for formal education and training institutions, helping them integrate pedagogical principles, learner-centred approaches, and structured quality management. It focuses on improving institution-wide processes, ensuring that learning objectives, teaching methodologies, and assessment practices align with recognised educational standards.

For non-formal education and vocational training, ISO 29990 provides a framework tailored to training providers operating outside the formal education system, such as adult learning centres and vocational training institutes. It emphasises learning outcomes, competence development, and learner satisfaction, ensuring that non-formal training meets industry and employment requirements. Complementing this, ISO 29993 applies to specific learning services rather than entire training organisations, focusing on programme design, learner engagement, and performance evaluation. This ensures that individual courses – whether in professional development, corporate training, or short-term vocational programmes – meet quality and effectiveness standards.

Dimension 2: Ensuring Student Participation in Quality Learning

Recommendation 2.1: Introducing a Learner Complaints Alert System

Ensuring the quality of training programmes is essential for the credibility and effectiveness of individual learning accounts (ILA). One of the key principles of the European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) framework is the integration of learner feedback mechanisms to drive continuous improvement. EQAVET encourages VET providers to implement systems that allow learners to provide feedback and lodge complaints.

To enhance accountability, a learner complaints and alert system could be embedded within the ILA digital platform, enabling trainees to submit feedback and to report substandard training experiences. This system should support anonymous and confidential submissions, categorise complaints based on severity, and require time-bound responses from training providers. A high volume of complaints or unresolved issues could lead to corrective actions, temporary suspension, or removal from the approved provider list. This mechanism would not only reinforce quality assurance but also protect learners from ineffective or misleading training programmes.

A notable reference point is Singapore’s SkillsFuture programme, where participants and employers can submit detailed feedback-including complaints-directly through the official SkillsFuture website. Although not a real-time “alert mechanism,” this structured feedback channel enables the authorities to investigate allegations of substandard training, conduct quality audits, and, if necessary, revoke approval for non-compliant providers. In practice, this means that training institutions are held accountable for any negative learner experiences. The system also maintains a publicly accessible record of provider ratings, enabling prospective learners to make more informed enrolment decisions.

If Greece were to adapt this model, integrating the complaints alert mechanism directly into the ILA platform could enhance its effectiveness. Instead of relying on manual reviews, this approach would enable real-time scrutiny of providers in response to complaints.

Dimension 3: Measuring Training Outcomes and Long-term Impact

Recommendation 3.1: Implement Pre-training Questionnaires as Part of the Enrolment Process

Performance evaluation should extend beyond employment and certification rates to measure actual skills acquisition and application. The current reform focuses primarily on post-training employment indicators without considering participants’ initial skill levels or the specific learning gains achieved through training. Greece could implement a pre-post training evaluation framework that assesses skills before and after training. This approach, inspired by Singapore’s TRAQOM system, would provide policymakers and providers with objective data on training effectiveness.

Two models for pre-training assessments exist. In the first, a baseline assessment could help establish participants' initial skill levels, ensuring that they receive training at the appropriate level and that the impact of training can be accurately measured. Greece could develop standardised assessment tools to evaluate initial level of skills.

The second approach is to monitor achievement of learning objectives by using skill self-assessments and/or learning objective questionnaires in the pre-training phase, and quizzing participants on their perceived progress at the end of the training. Implementing a similar approach in Greece could help ensure that training content, duration, and intensity are aligned with participants' actual needs.

Recommendation 3.2: Administer Training Questionnaires Centrally

Training questionnaires should be integrated into the future digital platform for training. Pre-training questionnaires should be administered as part of the enrolment process on a centralised online portal. Post-training questionnaires should also be administered not by the providers, but centrally via the portal. To ensure completion of such questionnaires it is recommended to oblige providers to upload final assessment results/certifications to the portal. Learners would then be required to complete the questionnaire to retrieve the grade or certificate. This would achieve twin objectives of firstly ensuring that all students participate in evaluation, and secondly limiting providers from exercising undue influence on the evaluation process.

Dimension 4: Performance-based Monitoring

Recommendation 4.1: Expand the KPI Framework to Enhance Flexibility

The current rigid five-KPI model could be expanded, allowing providers more flexibility in meeting performance expectations. A weighted scoring system would allow providers to meet a combination of KPIs rather than applying the same benchmarks universally. This would help account for differences in regional labour markets, industry-specific hiring patterns, and the challenges faced by providers working with vulnerable populations.

In Austria, the performance evaluation of training providers incorporates a weighted system that considers various factors such as regional employment rates and participant demographics. This approach ensures that providers working in challenging environments or with disadvantaged populations are assessed fairly, acknowledging the additional efforts required to achieve positive outcomes.

The Greek system could introduce differentiated performance criteria based on regional unemployment levels, economic sectors, and target populations. Providers working with long-term unemployed individuals, migrants, or those with lower employability prospects should have alternative benchmarks, recognising the additional challenges in securing job placements. Potential indicators are shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Expanded performance indicators for training effectiveness

Expanding performance metrics to capture workforce impact and accessibility

KPI Category	Indicator	Description
Labour Impact KPIs	Wage Increase	Percentage of participants reporting an increase in average income after completing the programme.
	Transition to Formal Employment	Percentage of graduates securing stable jobs with formal contracts and benefits.
	Internal Promotions	Percentage of employees who receive promotions within their current roles after training.
Programme Quality KPIs	Completion Rate	Percentage of participants successfully completing their training programmes with full attendance.
User Experience KPIs	Skills Improvement Perception	Percentage of participants reporting an improvement in their professional skills after training.
	Programme Accessibility	Percentage of participants who consider the programmes accessible in terms of cost, location, and scheduling.
	Complaints Incidence	Proportion of training participants lodging formal complaints about programme quality or relevance, indicating potential shortfalls in course delivery or alignment with participants’ needs.
Employer Outcome KPIs	Collaboration with the Private Sector	Number of programmes co-designed with employers or key sectors.
	Internship or Work Placement Participation	Proportion of programmes offering internships or practical experiences as part of the training.
	Employer perception of skill improvement	Employer perception of soft-skills, competences and attitude improvements
Broadening Participation and Accessibility KPIs (new category)	Access for Disadvantaged Groups	Percentage of participants from vulnerable groups (e.g. women, migrants, persons with disabilities).
	Regional Participation	Participation rate in rural areas, less-developed regions, or areas with higher unemployment rates.

The current “Jobs Again” reform does not foresee regular evaluation and updating of KPIs. As Greece is implementing such a unique and forward-looking reform, it is recommended to establish a periodic review process for the KPI framework to assess its relevance and effectiveness. This should involve stakeholders, including training providers, employers, and policymakers, to gather diverse perspectives and make informed adjustments. This iterative process will help maintain a dynamic and responsive evaluation system.

Finally, all KPIs should be published, giving learners some element of choice in the quality-levels of the institutions with which they wish to pursue a learning opportunity.

Recommendation 4.2: Introduce Incentives for High-Performer Providers

Instead of focusing solely on exclusion mechanisms for underperforming providers, the system could reward training providers that achieve strong, long-term employment outcomes.

High-performing organisations that consistently meet or exceed their performance metrics can receive benefits such as additional funding, public recognition, and promotional opportunities. For instance, the U.S. Department of Labor administers skills training grants through programs like the Critical Sectors Job Quality Grant Program and the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grants Program, which provide financial support to institutions demonstrating excellence in training delivery (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024[1]). In Austria and Germany, adult learning providers may receive additional resources for courses deemed particularly valuable for societal purposes. Furthermore, extra subsidies are allocated to support staff training and innovation projects, fostering both educational quality and programme development (Cedefop, 2024[2]).

Top-performing providers may additionally be granted greater autonomy in curriculum design and implementation, allowing them to innovate and tailor programmes to specific industry needs. This flexibility can lead to more responsive and effective training solutions.

Instead of imposing strict penalties on providers not meeting certain KPIs, offering targeted support can be more beneficial. This approach includes professional development opportunities, sharing best practices, and providing additional resources to address specific challenges. Such measures foster a culture of continuous improvement and capacity building. This would go in line with the World Bank’s recommendation for demand-driven skills training and results-based contracting, emphasising support for training providers to enhance their performance (World Bank, 2020[3]).

Providers which are subject to significant number of complaints, or who consistently rank bottom of the metrics lists, should still have licences withdrawn.

Dimension 5: Co-ordination and Governance

Recommendation 5.1: Ensuring Co-ordination in Quality Assurance

The responsibilities for the delivery and oversight of CVET in Greece is fragmented, with challenges undermining quality assurance and operational oversight. The Ministry of Education oversees formal education and training, while the Ministry of Labour is responsible for non-formal, continuing education and training. Additionally, several other ministries run training initiatives aligned with their respective needs and mandates. This fragmentation is further compounded by the inclusion of training initiatives in applications for European Social Fund (ESF) funding by multiple ministries. This has led to overlapping training schemes with limited co‑ordination, creating inefficiencies and reducing the strategic alignment of CVET provision across the country.

A range of non-governmental actors also play a significant role in CVET provision. For instance, organisations such as the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises (SEV) and companies like Cisco have developed small-scale, high-quality training initiatives that address labour market needs. These initiatives are often designed collaboratively with employers, sectoral federations, and private certifiers, ensuring their quality and relevance. Sectoral actors, such as tourism and retail federations under SEV, also provide important contributions by targeting sector-specific skills needs. However, these initiatives remain disconnected from the public training schemes, limiting their scalability and potential impact.

DYPA plays a central role in CVET by supporting and funding training programmes based on an analysis and anticipation of labour market needs. Once participants complete their training, their skills are certified by third-party certifiers. Participants can choose from one to two designated certifiers per programme to validate their skills. Certifiers operate under the Ministry of Development, while EOPPEP (under the Ministry of Education) oversees CVET providers. DYPA also conducts spontaneous audits to ensure programme delivery and compliance with requirements.

A key issue in the current reform is the fragmentation of quality assurance mechanisms due to the dual-layered accreditation system between EOPPEP and DYPA. Currently, EOPPEP oversees the initial accreditation of training providers, setting the baseline for participation in publicly funded programmes. The “Jobs Again” reform introduces additional quality requirements under DYPA, including ISO certifications and performance-based KPIs to remain in the registry. While these measures aim to enhance training relevance and accountability, they risk creating overlapping responsibilities, regulatory inconsistencies, and increased administrative burdens for providers.

Greater co‑ordination between DYPA and the Ministry of Education is crucial to ensure that providers are not forced to submit the same information multiple times or meet conflicting sets of criteria. Under the current dual-layer system, training institutions may face duplicative data requests from EOPPEP and DYPA, increasing their administrative workload without adding tangible value to quality assurance. To address this, both agencies should collaborate in developing a shared data infrastructure that captures the full range of quality indicators-such as learner progression, labour market outcomes, and teaching practices-through a single reporting channel. Likewise, as EOPPEP updates its accreditation standards, DYPA should have a seat at the table to align these changes with the performance-based KPIs it oversees, ensuring that no overlap or contradiction arises in reporting requirements, which not only creates inefficiencies but also places an excessive burden on training providers.

Recommendation 5.2: Ensuring Transparency in Certification through a Unified Certifier Selection Process

There are concerns about the reliability of certification outcomes in Greece’s CVET landscape, with persistently high pass rates prompting questions about how objectively certain assessments are conducted. To address these worries, DYPA could take a more proactive role in selecting certifiers-for example, by designating a single certifier for each geographic region or occupational sector, chosen through a transparent, competitive process. Under this model, providers would be required to have their trainees certified by the officially designated entity, thus reducing the risk of inflated pass rates. Centralising certifier selection in this way would also standardise quality benchmarks, promote uniform oversight, and uphold the credibility of the certification process. Over time, such an approach could strengthen public confidence in Greece’s vocational training system by ensuring that certifications genuinely reflect trainees’ acquired skills

Recommendation 5.3: Achieve Full Digitisation of All Processes Through a National Digital Portal

A centralised digital (ILA) platform, jointly managed by DYPA, EOPPEP, and the joint governing body, should serve as the backbone of the co‑ordination framework, as recommended by the EU Council Recommendation on Individual Learning Accounts.

Inspired by Singapore’s SkillsFuture portal and Estonia’s OSKA system this platform should integrate real-time data from training providers, labour market analytics, and performance indicators, enabling seamless information sharing between agencies. The platform should support joint monitoring of provider performance, tracking key metrics such as participant outcomes, participant feedback, certification rates, and employer feedback. Access to performance data should be shared between DYPA, EOPPEP, and the NSC, promoting transparency and facilitating data-driven decision-making. Additionally, the platform could host a shared database of accredited courses, aligned with both national and European qualifications frameworks, ensuring that training providers deliver standardised, transferable skills.

References

[2] Cedefop (2024), “Individual Learning Accounts: Case Study Germany (Draft)”, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/draft_case_study_de.clean_.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2025).

[1] U.S. Department of Labor (2024), “Skills Training Grants”, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/skills-training-grants (accessed on 26 February 2025).

[3] World Bank (2020), Demand-Driven Skills Training and Results-Based Contracting: Lessons for Youth Employment Programs, World Bank, Washington, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/245201585887181276/pdf/Demand-Driven-Skills-Training-and-Results-Based-Contracting-Lessons-for-Youth-Employment-Programs.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2025).