• 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

Molise

Comparative values by:

SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

P - Poor

Rating

33 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 39
Governance 56 82 30
Personnel management 54 95 23
Public services and relations with citizens 54 88 24
Public tenders and relations with suppliers 44 84 24
Environment 55 94 76

Administrative Capacity Index

Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators

1 Financial situation

P - Poor

Rating

39 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

  • Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues
  • Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds

Weaknesses

  • Financial autonomy
  • Collection capacity
  • Spending capacity
  • Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita
  • EU funds management - effected payments

Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation

Indicator name Value Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Financial autonomy 80.37 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 79.0 low | Low
2021 80.37 low | Low
Low
Financial pressure per capita 2,488.3 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2337.9 medium | Medium
2021 2488.3 medium | Medium
Medium
Collection capacity 74.68 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 78.9 low | Low
2021 74.68 low | Low
Low
Spending capacity 77.55 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 81.7 medium | Medium
2021 77.55 low | Low
Low
Spending rigidity 5.79 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 6.2 low | Low
2021 5.79 medium | Medium
Medium
Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues 96.83 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 103.3 low | Low
2021 96.83 high | High
High
New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities 55.36 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 28.9 high | High
2021 55.36 medium | Medium
Medium
Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds 0.14 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.0 high | High
2021 0.14 high | High
High
Debt per capita 1,436.26 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1176.7 medium | Medium
2021 1436.26 medium | Medium
Medium
Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita -97.17 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 -116.4 low | Low
2021 -97.17 low | Low
Low
EU funds management - effected payments 34.0 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 16.0 low | Low
2021 34.0 low | Low
Low

2 Governance

P - Poor

Rating

30 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

  • E- Government
  • Court of Auditors - update

Weaknesses

  • Degree of digitization
  • Public Real Estate properties - management
  • Subsidiary companies
  • Anti-corruption measures undertaken

Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance

Indicator name Value Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Open data availability 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
E- Government 16.8 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1.2 low | Low
2021 16.8 high | High
High
Degree of digitization 0.46 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Target achievement 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
Smart Working 10.0 4
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Public works incompleted 2.43 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2.56 medium | Medium
2021 2.43 medium | Medium
Medium
Public Real Estate properties - wide report 0.0 0
Year Value Evaluation
2020 10.0 high | High
2021 0.0 nd | N.A.
N.A.
Public Real Estate properties - management -1.89 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 -0.7 medium | Medium
2021 -1.89 low | Low
Low
Subsidiary companies 60.0 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Anti-corruption measures undertaken 10.2 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 3.0 low | Low
2021 10.2 low | Low
Low
Court of Auditors - update 2.0 8
Year Value Evaluation
High

3 Personnel management

P - Poor

Rating

23 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

Weaknesses

  • Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
  • Average age
  • Personnel with a degree on total personnel

Indicators of the macro-indicator Personnel management

Indicator name Value Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Per capita personnel expenditure 111.87 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 102.4 low | Low
2021 111.87 medium | Medium
Medium
Personnel expenditure on current expenditure 3.77 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 3.7 low | Low
2021 3.77 medium | Medium
Medium
Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel 14.84 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Average age 58.81 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Personnel with a degree on total personnel 33.91 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Average days of absence (sick leave) 7.87 5
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Managers on population 0.73 5
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.

4 Public services and relations with citizens

P - Poor

Rating

24 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

Weaknesses

  • Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable)
  • Landline high-speed internet access covering
  • Hospital emigration
  • Citizens involvement

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

Indicator name Value Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable) 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) 0.0 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Online services 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
Landline high-speed internet access covering 6.4 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Hospital emigration 28.6 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Beds in nursing homes (BES) 69.5 4
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Integrated home care services 5.1 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 5.4 high | High
2021 5.1 high | High
High
Accredited private health care centers 2.46 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2.32 medium | Medium
2021 2.46 medium | Medium
Medium
Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita 130.2 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 13144.24 medium | Medium
2021 130.2 medium | Medium
Medium
Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
Citizens involvement 1.3 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
FOIA register: accepted requests 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.
FOIA register: average time of reply to requests 0
Year Value Evaluation
N.A.

5 Public tenders and relations with suppliers

P - Poor

Rating

24 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

  • Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
  • Timeliness of payments indicator
  • Per capita debt amount vs suppliers
  • Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens
  • Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year

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

Indicator name Value Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Recurring contractors in direct procurements 20.0 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 28.36 medium | Medium
2021 20.0 medium | Medium
Medium
Direct procurements on global public tenders - number 70.45 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 73.6 medium | Medium
2021 70.45 medium | Medium
Medium
Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount 37.95 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 67.72 low | Low
2021 37.95 low | Low
Low
Timeliness of payments indicator 123.46 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 99.75 low | Low
2021 123.46 low | Low
Low
Per capita debt amount vs suppliers 372.86 2
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens 20.36 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year 0.0 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low

6 Environment

PP+ - Good

Rating

76 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

  • Air quality - PM 2.5
  • Land consumption
  • Contaminated sites
  • Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
  • Population exposed to flood risk
  • Renewable energy

Weaknesses

  • Urban waste disposal into dump
  • Population exposed to landslide risk

Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment

Indicator name Value Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Air quality - PM 2.5 33.3 12
Year Value Evaluation
High
Land consumption 3.9 12
Year Value Evaluation
High
Contaminated sites 0.3 12
Year Value Evaluation
High
Urban waste disposal into dump 90.0 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 101.8 low | Low
2021 90.0 low | Low
Low
Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering 3.9 12
Year Value Evaluation
2020 4.1 high | High
2021 3.9 high | High
High
Population exposed to landslide risk 6.5 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 6.5 low | Low
2021 6.5 low | Low
Low
Population exposed to flood risk 1.4 12
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1.4 high | High
2021 1.4 high | High
High
Renewable energy 89.2 14
Year Value Evaluation
2020 89.2 high | High
2021 89.2 high | High
High