This data has been published here as a demo of our services: it refers to the Regions, analyzed in 2021.
To access the results for other years and/or other types of entities (Municipalities, Union of Municipalities), it is necessary to proceed to the web page dedicated to our services.
Find out how to subscribeRating classes
- PPP+ - Excellent (90, 100)
- PPP - Very Good (80, 89)
- PP+ - Good (60, 79)
- PP - Satisfactory (50, 59)
- P+ - Weak (40, 49)
- P - Poor (20, 39)
- F - Fallible (1, 19)
Public Administration
Abruzzo
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P - Poor
Rating
39 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
71/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
33/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor* | 3 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 6 |
| PP+ - Good | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Administrative capacity Index: summary of the 6 macro-indicators
| Macro-indicator | Average score of Public Administrations assessed | Benchmark Public Administration for each macro-area | Score of the Public Administration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial situation | 56 | 91 | 47 |
| Governance | 56 | 82 | 31 |
| Personnel management | 54 | 95 | 46 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 54 | 88 | 41 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 44 | 84 | 17 |
| Environment | 55 | 94 | 70 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
47 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
91/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
Basilicata
Basilicata
20/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 2 |
| P+ - Weak* | 6 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
- Financial pressure per capita
- Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues
- New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities
- Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds
Weaknesses
- Financial autonomy
- Collection capacity
- Spending capacity
- Debt per capita
- EU funds management - effected payments
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | 86.4 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 2,247.0 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Collection capacity | % | 79.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending capacity | % | 79.26 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending rigidity | % | 4.65 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 96.33 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities | % | 46.35 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Debt per capita | € p.c. | 1,551.63 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -10.2 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 28.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
31 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Piemonte
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Piemonte
82/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
Molise
Sardegna
Molise
Sardegna
30/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor* | 5 |
| P+ - Weak | 3 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 3 |
| PP+ - Good | 8 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Public Real Estate properties - wide report
Weaknesses
- Degree of digitalization
- Performance
- Public works incompleted
- Public Real Estate properties - management
- Subsidiary companies
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open data availability | value | 342.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| E- Government | value | 9.0 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Degree of digitalization | value | 0.36 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Performance | value | 98.4 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Working from home (WFH) | value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Public works incompleted | % | 6.31 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Public Real Estate properties - wide report | value | 1,111.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -1.89 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Subsidiary companies | absolute value | 44.44 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | value | 13.2 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Court of Auditors - update | value | 1.0 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
Rating
46 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Lombardia
Lombardia
95/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
23/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 4 |
| P+ - Weak* | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 4 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
- Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure
Weaknesses
- Average age
Indicators of the macro-indicator Personnel management
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per capita personnel expenditure | € p.c. | 55.44 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Personnel expenditure on current expenditure | % | 2.27 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure | % | 0.02 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 1.34 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Average age | years | 55.9 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 44.41 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Average days of absence (sick leave) | days per person | 8.71 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Managers on population | val./10.000 ab. | 0.47 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 98.04 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | 0.0 | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
41 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
88/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
24/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 6 |
| P+ - Weak* | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 5 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Integrated Home Care services
- Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- FOIA register: accepted requests
Weaknesses
- Hospital migration
- Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services and relations with citizens
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable) | value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) | value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Online services | value | 18.2 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 16.4 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Hospital migration | % | 16.6 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 42.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Integrated Home Care services | % | 3.8 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 1.0 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 147.6 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties | value | 1.5 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Citizens involvement | value | 2.6 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| FOIA register: accepted requests | % | 94.7 | High score for high values | 4 | High |
| FOIA register: average time of reply to requests | days | 22.81 | High score for low values | 2 | Medium |
Rating
17 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Liguria
Liguria
84/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
44/100
Worst score
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
17/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible* | 1 |
| P - Poor | 9 |
| P+ - Weak | 3 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 3 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
Weaknesses
- Recurring contractors in direct procurements
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - number
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
- Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers
- Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public tenders and relations with suppliers
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring contractors in direct procurements | % | 14.49 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 79.21 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 79.99 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Timeliness of payments indicator | days | 16.0 | High score for low values | 8 | Medium |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | 136.27 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 8.56 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
70 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
P.A. Bolzano
94/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
55/100
Worst score
Liguria
Liguria
18/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 1 |
| P - Poor | 3 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good* | 6 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
- Land consumption
- Contaminated sites
- Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
- Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources
Weaknesses
- Population exposed to landslide risk
Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 77.8 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| Land consumption | % | 5.0 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Contaminated sites | ‰ inhabitants | 0.6 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 34.4 | High score for low values | 7 | Medium |
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 5.0 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 5.8 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 6.1 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 51.0 | High score for high values | 14 | High |