• Rating 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

Comparative values by:

SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

P - Poor

Rating

39 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

71/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
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

1 Financial situation

P+ - Weak

Rating

47 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

91/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
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 accumulated current 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 Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Financial autonomy % 86.4 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 86.7 low | Basso
2021 86.4 low | Basso
Basso
Financial pressure per capita € p.c. 2,247.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2168.5 high | Alto
2021 2247.0 high | Alto
Alto
Collection capacity % 79.0 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 78.8 low | Basso
2021 79.0 low | Basso
Basso
Spending capacity % 79.26 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 75.9 low | Basso
2021 79.26 low | Basso
Basso
Spending rigidity % 4.65 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 4.6 medium | Medium
2021 4.65 medium | Medium
Medium
Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues % 96.33 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 101.4 low | Basso
2021 96.33 high | Alto
Alto
New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities % 46.35 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 46.8 high | Alto
2021 46.35 high | Alto
Alto
Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds % 0.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.0 high | Alto
2021 0.0 high | Alto
Alto
Debt per capita € p.c. 1,551.63 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1538.5 low | Basso
2021 1551.63 low | Basso
Basso
Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita € p.c. -10.2 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.1 high | Alto
2021 -10.2 medium | Medium
Medium
EU funds management - effected payments % 28.0 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 16.0 low | Basso
2021 28.0 low | Basso
Basso

2 Governance

P - Poor

Rating

31 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
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 digitization
  • Target achievement
  • 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 Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Open data availability value 342.0 High score for high values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 330.0 medium | Medium
2021 342.0 medium | Medium
Medium
E- Government value 9.0 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 10.8 medium | Medium
2021 9.0 medium | Medium
Medium
Degree of digitization value 0.36 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Basso
Target achievement value 98.4 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 99.65 medium | Medium
2021 98.4 low | Basso
Basso
Smart Working value High score for high values 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.D.
Public works incompleted % 6.31 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 5.31 low | Basso
2021 6.31 low | Basso
Basso
Public Real Estate properties - wide report value 1,111.0 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 10.0 high | Alto
2021 1111.0 high | Alto
Alto
Public Real Estate properties - management € p.c. -1.89 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Basso
Subsidiary companies % 44.44 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Basso
Anti-corruption measures undertaken value 13.2 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 16.8 high | Alto
2021 13.2 medium | Medium
Medium
Court of Auditors - update value 1.0 High score for low values 4
Year Value Evaluation
Medium

3 Personnel management

P+ - Weak

Rating

46 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Lombardia
95/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
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 Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Per capita personnel expenditure € p.c. 55.44 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 56.3 medium | Medium
2021 55.44 medium | Medium
Medium
Personnel expenditure on current expenditure % 2.27 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2.3 medium | Medium
2021 2.27 medium | Medium
Medium
Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure % 0.02 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.2 medium | Medium
2021 0.02 high | Alto
Alto
Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel % 1.34 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 3.5 low | Basso
2021 1.34 medium | Medium
Medium
Average age years old 55.9 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 55.4 low | Basso
2021 55.9 low | Basso
Basso
Personnel with a degree on total personnel % 44.41 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Average days of absence (sick leave) average days 8.71 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 9.9 low | Basso
2021 8.71 medium | Medium
Medium
Managers on population 0.47 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers % 98.04 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 81.1 high | Alto
2021 98.04 medium | Medium
Medium
Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers value 0.0 High score for high values 0
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.0 low | Basso
2021 0.0 nd | N.D.
N.D.

4 Public services and relations with citizens

P+ - Weak

Rating

41 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

88/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
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 health care centers
  • FOIA register: accepted requests

Weaknesses

  • Hospital emigration
  • Beds in nursing homes (BES)
  • Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita

Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services and relations with citizens

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable) code High score for high values 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.D.
Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) code High score for high values 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.D.
Online services value 18.2 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 15.6 medium | Medium
2021 18.2 medium | Medium
Medium
Landline high-speed internet access covering % 16.4 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Hospital emigration % 16.6 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Basso
Beds in nursing homes (BES) 42.0 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Basso
Integrated home care services % 3.8 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 3.6 high | Alto
2021 3.8 high | Alto
Alto
Accredited private health care centers value 1.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1.1 high | Alto
2021 1.0 high | Alto
Alto
Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita € p.c. 147.6 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 14718.62 low | Basso
2021 147.6 low | Basso
Basso
Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties value 1.5 High score for high values 3
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Citizens involvement value 2.6 High score for high values 3
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
FOIA register: accepted requests % 94.7 High score for high values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 94.23 high | Alto
2021 94.7 high | Alto
Alto
FOIA register: average time of reply to requests days 22.81 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 13.87 high | Alto
2021 22.81 medium | Medium
Medium

5 Public tenders and relations with suppliers

F - Fallible

Rating

17 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Liguria
84/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
44/100
Worst score
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 debt amount vs suppliers
  • Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens

Indicators of the macro-indicator Public tenders and relations with suppliers

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Recurring contractors in direct procurements % 14.49 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 13.08 high | Alto
2021 14.49 low | Basso
Basso
Direct procurements on global public tenders - number % 79.21 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 79.72 low | Basso
2021 79.21 low | Basso
Basso
Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount % 79.99 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 47.24 low | Basso
2021 79.99 low | Basso
Basso
Timeliness of payments indicator average days 16.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 23.01 medium | Medium
2021 16.0 medium | Medium
Medium
Per capita debt amount vs suppliers 136.27 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
Basso
Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens value 8.56 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Basso
Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year % High score for high values 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.D.

6 Environment

PP+ - Good

Rating

70 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
94/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
55/100
Worst score
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
  • Renewable energy

Weaknesses

  • Population exposed to landslide risk

Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Air quality - PM 2.5 % 77.8 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Land consumption % 5.0 High score for low values 12
Year Value Evaluation
Alto
Contaminated sites thousandths 0.6 High score for low values 12
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1.3 medium | Medium
2021 0.6 high | Alto
Alto
Urban waste disposal into dump % 34.4 High score for low values 7
Year Value Evaluation
2020 37.7 medium | Medium
2021 34.4 medium | Medium
Medium
Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering % 5.0 High score for low values 12
Year Value Evaluation
2020 5.11 medium | Medium
2021 5.0 high | Alto
Alto
Population exposed to landslide risk % 5.8 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 5.8 low | Basso
2021 5.8 low | Basso
Basso
Population exposed to flood risk % 6.1 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2020 6.1 medium | Medium
2021 6.1 medium | Medium
Medium
Renewable energy % 51.0 High score for high values 14
Year Value Evaluation
2020 51.0 high | Alto
2021 51.0 high | Alto
Alto