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
Basilicata
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P+ - Weak
Rating
45 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 | 20 |
| Governance | 56 | 82 | 56 |
| Personnel management | 54 | 95 | 43 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 54 | 88 | 50 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 44 | 84 | 26 |
| Environment | 55 | 94 | 76 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
20 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
- Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita
- EU funds management - effected payments
Weaknesses
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | High score for high values | 0 |
|
N.D. | ||||||||||
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 0.0 | High score for low values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| Collection capacity | % | 0.0 | High score for high values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| Spending capacity | % | 0.0 | High score for high values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| Spending rigidity | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 0.0 | High score for high values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| Debt per capita | € p.c. | 0.0 | High score for low values | 0 |
|
N.D. | |||||||||
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | 18.4 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 54.0 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
Alto |
Rating
56 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
- Degree of digitization
- Public Real Estate properties - wide report
- Subsidiary companies
- Court of Auditors - update
Weaknesses
- E- Government
- Anti-corruption measures undertaken
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open data availability | value | 466.7 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| E- Government | value | 5.0 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Degree of digitization | value | 1.02 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Target achievement | value | 117.96 | High score for high values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Smart Working | value | High score for high values | 0 |
|
N.D. | ||||||||||
| Public works incompleted | % | 3.88 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - wide report | value | 1,111.0 | High score for high values | 8 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -0.02 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Subsidiary companies | % | 80.0 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | value | 7.0 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Court of Auditors - update | value | 2.0 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
Alto |
Rating
43 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
- Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers
Weaknesses
- Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure
- 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 | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per capita personnel expenditure | € p.c. | 120.09 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Personnel expenditure on current expenditure | % | 4.55 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure | % | 0.65 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 0.73 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Average age | years old | 57.49 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 32.75 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Average days of absence (sick leave) | average days | 8.18 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Managers on population | ‱ | 0.76 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 98.91 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | value | 215.79 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
Alto |
Rating
50 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
- Accredited private health care centers
Weaknesses
- Landline high-speed internet access covering
- Hospital emigration
- FOIA register: accepted requests
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services and relations with citizens
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable) | code | 1.0 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) | code | 1.0 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Online services | value | 83.2 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 12.6 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Hospital emigration | % | 24.7 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Beds in nursing homes (BES) | ‱ | 71.8 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Integrated home care services | % | 4.1 | High score for high values | 8 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Accredited private health care centers | value | 1.61 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita | € p.c. | 139.1 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties | value | 1.5 | High score for high values | 3 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Citizens involvement | value | 3.9 | High score for high values | 3 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| FOIA register: accepted requests | % | 78.0 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| FOIA register: average time of reply to requests | days | 18.7 | High score for low values | 2 |
|
Medium |
Rating
26 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
- Timeliness of payments indicator
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public tenders and relations with suppliers
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring contractors in direct procurements | % | 8.54 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 11.18 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 0.38 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Timeliness of payments indicator | average days | 75.0 | High score for low values | 2 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Per capita debt amount vs suppliers | € | High score for low values | 0 |
|
N.D. | ||||||||||
| Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens | value | High score for low values | 0 |
|
N.D. | ||||||||||
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | High score for high values | 0 |
|
N.D. |
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
- Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
- Population exposed to flood risk
- Renewable energy
Weaknesses
- Population exposed to landslide risk
Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 60.0 | High score for low values | 12 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Land consumption | % | 3.2 | High score for low values | 12 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | thousandths | 4.0 | High score for low values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | % | 26.0 | High score for low values | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 3.2 | High score for low values | 12 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 5.8 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Basso | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 0.7 | High score for low values | 12 |
|
Alto | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | % | 96.3 | High score for high values | 14 |
|
Alto |