• 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:
Download Report All data

SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

P - Poor

Rating

33 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
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
Download All data

Rating

39 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
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 Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Evaluation of the indicator
Financial autonomy % 80.37 High score for high values 1 Basso
Financial pressure per capita € p.c. 2,488.3 High score for low values 4 Medium
Collection capacity % 74.68 High score for high values 1 Basso
Spending capacity % 77.55 High score for high values 1 Basso
Spending rigidity % 5.79 High score for low values 5 Medium
Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues % 96.83 High score for high values 8 Alto
New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities % 55.36 High score for low values 4 Medium
Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds % 0.14 High score for low values 8 Alto
Debt per capita € p.c. 1,436.26 High score for low values 5 Medium
Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita € p.c. -97.17 High score for high values 1 Basso
EU funds management - effected payments % 34.0 High score for high values 1 Basso

2 Governance

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

30 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Piemonte
82/100
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 Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Evaluation of the indicator
Open data availability value n.d. High score for high values 0 N.D.
E- Government value 16.8 High score for high values 10 Alto
Degree of digitization value 0.46 High score for high values 1 Basso
Target achievement value n.d. High score for high values 0 N.D.
Smart Working value 10.0 High score for high values 4 Medium
Public works incompleted % 2.43 High score for low values 4 Medium
Public Real Estate properties - wide report value 0.0 High score for high values 0 N.D.
Public Real Estate properties - management € p.c. -1.89 High score for high values 1 Basso
Subsidiary companies ABS 60.0 High score for high values 1 Basso
Anti-corruption measures undertaken value 10.2 High score for high values 1 Basso
Court of Auditors - update value 2.0 High score for low values 8 Alto

3 Personnel management

P - Poor
Download All data

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 Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Evaluation of the indicator
Per capita personnel expenditure € p.c. 111.87 High score for low values 5 Medium
Personnel expenditure on current expenditure % 3.77 High score for low values 5 Medium
Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure % n.d. High score for low values 0 N.D.
Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel % 14.84 High score for low values 1 Basso
Average age years 58.81 High score for low values 1 Basso
Personnel with a degree on total personnel % 33.91 High score for high values 1 Basso
Average days of absence (sick leave) average days 7.87 High score for low values 5 Medium
Managers on population v/ 10k inhabitants 0.73 High score for low values 5 Medium
Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers % n.d. High score for low values 0 N.D.
Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers variance n.d. High score for high values 0 N.D.

4 Public services and relations with citizens

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

24 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
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 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.D.
Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) value 0.0 High score for high values 1 Basso
Online services value n.d. High score for high values 0 N.D.
Landline high-speed internet access covering % 6.4 High score for high values 1 Basso
Hospital emigration % 28.6 High score for low values 1 Basso
Beds in nursing homes (BES) v/ 10k inhabitants 69.5 High score for high values 4 Medium
Integrated home care services % 5.1 High score for high values 8 Alto
Accredited private health care centers v/ 10k inhabitants 2.46 High score for low values 4 Medium
Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita € p.c. 130.2 High score for low values 4 Medium
Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties value n.d. High score for high values 0 N.D.
Citizens involvement value 1.3 High score for high values 1 Basso
FOIA register: accepted requests % n.d. High score for high values 0 N.D.
FOIA register: average time of reply to requests days n.d. High score for low values 0 N.D.

5 Public tenders and relations with suppliers

P - Poor
Download All data

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 Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Evaluation of the indicator
Recurring contractors in direct procurements % 20.0 High score for low values 8 Medium
Direct procurements on global public tenders - number % 70.45 High score for low values 8 Medium
Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount % 37.95 High score for low values 2 Basso
Timeliness of payments indicator days 123.46 High score for low values 2 Basso
Per capita debt amount vs suppliers € p.c. 372.86 High score for low values 2 Basso
Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens v/ 10k inhabitants 20.36 High score for low values 1 Basso
Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year % 0.0 High score for high values 1 Basso

6 Environment

PP+ - Good
Download All data

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 Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Evaluation of the indicator
Air quality - PM 2.5 % 33.3 High score for low values 12 Alto
Land consumption % 3.9 High score for low values 12 Alto
Contaminated sites thousandths 0.3 High score for low values 12 Alto
Urban waste disposal into dump % 90.0 High score for low values 1 Basso
Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering % 3.9 High score for low values 12 Alto
Population exposed to landslide risk % 6.5 High score for low values 1 Basso
Population exposed to flood risk % 1.4 High score for low values 12 Alto
Renewable energy % 89.2 High score for high values 14 Alto