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)
Administration
P.A. Bolzano
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
PP - Satisfactory
Rating
54 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
71/100
Average score of the administrations
53/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
33/100
Distribution of 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: summary of the 6 macro-indicators
| Macro-indicator | Average score of the reference bodies | Benchmark scores of the reference bodies | Score of the Organization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial Report | 56 | 91 | 43 |
| Governance | 56 | 82 | 61 |
| Personnel management | 54 | 95 | 39 |
| Public services | 54 | 88 | 59 |
| Public tenders | 44 | 84 | 38 |
| Enviroment | 55 | 94 | 94 |
Administrative Capacity
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
43 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
91/100
Average score of the administrations
56/100
Worst score
Basilicata
Basilicata
20/100
Distribution of 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
- Collection capacity
- Debt per capita
Weaknesses
- Financial stability per capita
- Spending rigidity
- Current expenditure and loan repayments on current revenues
- Current liabilities from total liabilities
- Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial Report
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | 90.48 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Financial stability per capita | 9,316.95 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Collection capacity | 91.65 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Spending capacity | 86.66 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Spending rigidity | 19.12 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Current expenditure and loan repayments on current revenues | 80.83 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Current liabilities from total liabilities | 66.58 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Investments financed by debt | 3.65 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Debt per capita | 344.66 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | -617.67 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Percentage of payments actually effected from community funds | 45.0 | 5 |
|
Medium |
Rating
61 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
82/100
Average score of the administrations
56/100
Distribution of 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
- Degree of digitization
- Percentage of public works completed on time
- Management of public assets
- Main Findings of the Court of Auditors
Weaknesses
- Open data availability
- Publication and compliance of agreed targets
- Deficit/surplus of rental property per capita
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open data availability | 300.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| E- Government | 22.8 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Degree of digitization | 1.28 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Publication and compliance of agreed targets | 0.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Smart Working | 10.0 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Percentage of public works completed on time | 0.0 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Management of public assets | 1,111.0 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Deficit/surplus of rental property per capita | -5.71 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Level of accountability of the subsidiary companies | 60.0 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | 11.4 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Main Findings of the Court of Auditors | 2.0 | 8 |
|
High |
Rating
39 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Lombardia
Lombardia
95/100
Average score of the administrations
54/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
23/100
Distribution of 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
- Incidence of expenses for external advisory on personnel expenditure
- Average age (years)
- Average days of absence (days/person)
Weaknesses
- Per capita personnel expense (€ p.c.)
- Personnel expenditure incidence on current expenses
- Percentage of personnel without fixed-term contract
- Percentage of managers to Population
Indicators of the macro-indicator Personnel management
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per capita personnel expense (€ p.c.) | 1,941.85 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Personnel expenditure incidence on current expenses | 23.41 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Incidence of expenses for external advisory on personnel expenditure | 0.0 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Percentage of personnel without fixed-term contract | 21.41 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Average age (years) | 48.38 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Percentage of personnel with a degree | 43.16 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Average days of absence (days/person) | 2.8 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Percentage of managers to Population | 7.45 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Provided rewards out of allocated ones to managers (%) | 0 |
|
N.A. | ||||||||||
| Degree of differentiation of premiums paid to managers | 0 |
|
N.A. |
Rating
59 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
88/100
Average score of the administrations
54/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
24/100
Distribution of 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
- Proceedings and services
- Hospital emigration
- Beds in nursing homes
- Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita
Weaknesses
- Integrated home care services
- Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties
- Citizens involvement
- FOIA access register: accepted requests
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proceedings and services | 2.0 | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Efficiency indicators: timing supervision and/or reporting | 2.0 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Online services | 19.5 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | 20.0 | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Hospital emigration | 4.9 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Beds in nursing homes | 111.7 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Integrated home care services | 0.2 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Accredited private health care centers | 2.48 | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita | 90.1 | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties | 1.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Citizens involvement | 1.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| FOIA access register: accepted requests | 78.3 | 1 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| FOIA access register: average time of reply to requests | 22.56 | 2 |
|
Medium |
Rating
38 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Liguria
Liguria
84/100
Average score of the administrations
44/100
Worst score
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
17/100
Distribution of 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
- Indicator of prompt payments
- Discharge of commercial debts arisen during the fiscal year
Weaknesses
- Recurring contractors in direct procurements
- Percentage of direct procurements on global public tenders - number
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public tenders
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring contractors in direct procurements | 43.38 | 2 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Percentage of direct procurements on global public tenders - number | 81.08 | 2 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders per amount | 24.42 | 8 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Indicator of prompt payments | -10.0 | 16 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Total amount of debts vs suppliers per capita | 9.42 | 0 |
|
N.A. | |||||||||
| Number of credit companies per 10k citizens | 2.67 | 0 |
|
N.A. | |||||||||
| Discharge of commercial debts arisen during the fiscal year | 85.69 | 10 |
|
High |
Rating
94 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
P.A. Bolzano
94/100
Average score of the administrations
55/100
Worst score
Liguria
Liguria
18/100
Distribution of 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
- Urban waste disposal into dump
- Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
- Population exposed to landslide risk
- Population exposed to flood risk
- Renewable energy
Weaknesses
Indicators of the macro-indicator Enviroment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 83.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 2.7 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.2 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 1.3 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 2.8 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.6 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 2.0 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 180.7 | 14 |
|
High |