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.
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
Piemonte
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
PP+ - Good
Rating
64 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 | 55 |
| Governance | 56 | 82 | 82 |
| Personnel management | 54 | 95 | 66 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 54 | 88 | 71 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 44 | 84 | 40 |
| Environment | 55 | 94 | 53 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
55 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
- Spending rigidity
- New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities
Weaknesses
- 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 | % | 91.99 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 2,403.54 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Collection capacity | % | 86.55 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Spending capacity | % | 86.2 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Spending rigidity | % | 2.81 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 94.97 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities | % | 38.83 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | % | 6.27 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Debt per capita | € p.c. | 1,239.01 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -12.55 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 35.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
82 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Piemonte
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Piemonte
82/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
Molise
Sardegna
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
- Open data availability
- E- Government
- Degree of digitalization
- Working from home (WFH)
- Public works incompleted
- Public Real Estate properties - wide report
- Subsidiary companies
- Anti-corruption measures undertaken
- Court of Auditors - update
Weaknesses
- Performance
- Public Real Estate properties - management
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open data availability | value | 1,172.6 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| E- Government | value | 20.4 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Degree of digitalization | value | 0.99 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Performance | value | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Working from home (WFH) | value | 11.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Public works incompleted | % | 1.7 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Public Real Estate properties - wide report | value | 1,111.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -1.64 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Subsidiary companies | absolute value | 94.44 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | value | 15.6 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Court of Auditors - update | value | 2.0 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
Rating
66 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
- Per capita personnel expenditure
- Personnel expenditure on current expenditure
- Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
- Average days of absence (sick leave)
- Managers on population
Weaknesses
- Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers
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. | 45.0 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Personnel expenditure on current expenditure | % | 1.83 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Average age | years | 54.41 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 46.17 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Average days of absence (sick leave) | days per person | 5.64 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Managers on population | val./10.000 ab. | 0.22 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 98.7 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | 28.41 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
71 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
- Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable)
- Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable)
- Online services
- Landline high-speed internet access covering
- Hospital migration
- Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- Citizens involvement
Weaknesses
- Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
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 | 2.0 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) | value | 2.0 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Online services | value | 19.5 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 34.7 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Hospital migration | % | 6.7 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 115.5 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Integrated Home Care services | % | 2.7 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 3.33 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 121.8 | 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.A. |
| Citizens involvement | value | 6.5 | High score for high values | 6 | High |
| FOIA register: accepted requests | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| FOIA register: average time of reply to requests | days | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
40 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
- Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers
Weaknesses
- Recurring contractors in direct procurements
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - number
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
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 | % | 20.77 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 80.04 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 64.87 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Timeliness of payments indicator | days | 7.74 | High score for low values | 8 | Medium |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | 1.02 | High score for low values | 16 | High |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 0.52 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | 92.63 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
Rating
53 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
- Urban waste disposal at landfill
- Population exposed to landslide risk
Weaknesses
- Air quality - PM 2.5
- Contaminated sites
Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 88.6 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Land consumption | % | 6.7 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| Contaminated sites | ‰ inhabitants | 42.6 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 12.0 | High score for low values | 14 | High |
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 6.7 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 1.6 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 4.8 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 41.8 | High score for high values | 7 | Medium |