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, since REP is a research centre which finances itself through the data produced by its own activities.
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
Molise
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P - Poor
Rating
33 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 | 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
Rating
39 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
- 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 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Financial pressure per capita | 2,488.3 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Collection capacity | 74.68 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Spending capacity | 77.55 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Spending rigidity | 5.79 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | 96.83 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities | 55.36 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | 0.14 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Debt per capita | 1,436.26 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | -97.17 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| EU funds management - effected payments | 34.0 | 1 |
|
Low |
Rating
30 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
82/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
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 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| E- Government | 16.8 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Degree of digitization | 0.46 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Target achievement | 0 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| Smart Working | 10.0 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Public works incompleted | 2.43 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - wide report | 0.0 | 0 |
|
N.A. | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - management | -1.89 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Subsidiary companies | 60.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | 10.2 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Court of Auditors - update | 2.0 | 8 |
|
High |
Rating
23 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
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 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Personnel expenditure on current expenditure | 3.77 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure | 0 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | 14.84 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Average age | 58.81 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | 33.91 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Average days of absence (sick leave) | 7.87 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Managers on population | 0.73 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | 0 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | 0 |
|
N.A. |
Rating
24 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
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 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) | 0.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Online services | 0 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | 6.4 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Hospital emigration | 28.6 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Beds in nursing homes (BES) | 69.5 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Integrated home care services | 5.1 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Accredited private health care centers | 2.46 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita | 130.2 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties | 0 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| Citizens involvement | 1.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| FOIA register: accepted requests | 0 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| FOIA register: average time of reply to requests | 0 |
|
N.A. |
Rating
24 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
- 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 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | 70.45 | 8 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | 37.95 | 2 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Timeliness of payments indicator | 123.46 | 2 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Per capita debt amount vs suppliers | 372.86 | 2 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens | 20.36 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | 0.0 | 1 |
|
Low |
Rating
76 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
- 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 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 3.9 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.3 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 90.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 3.9 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 6.5 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 1.4 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 89.2 | 14 |
|
High |