This data has been published here as a demo of our services: it refers to the Regions, analyzed in 2023.
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
Abruzzo
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P - Poor
Rating
37 out of 100Chronological trend
Not availableBenchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Trento
Sardegna
P.A. Trento
Sardegna
62/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
50/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
22/100
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 | 3 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 10 |
| PP+ - Good | 4 |
| 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 | 51 | 72 | 44 |
| Governance | 48 | 72 | 36 |
| Personnel management | 50 | 85 | 38 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 47 | 77 | 35 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 61 | 90 | 33 |
| Environment | 44 | 81 | 41 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
44 out of 100Chronological trend
Not availableBenchmark score
Benchmark
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
72/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
10/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 3 |
| P - Poor | 0 |
| P+ - Weak* | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 8 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Financial autonomy
- Spending rigidity
Weaknesses
- Collection capacity
- Spending capacity
- Per capita debt to suppliers
- Off-budget debts recognized and financed
- 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 | % | 90.94 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 2,736.97 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Collection capacity | % | 75.47 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending capacity | % | 78.77 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending rigidity | % | 2.34 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Capital account expenditure on total expenses | % | 7.99 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita debt from financing | € p.c. | 802.97 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Per capita debt to suppliers | € p.c. | 219.3 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Off-budget debts recognized and financed | % | 0.82 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 105.88 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -75.32 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Expenditure for accredited private facilities on expenditure for health services | % | 34.97 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 71.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
36 out of 100Chronological trend
Not availableBenchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Trento
P.A. Trento
72/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
48/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
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* | 4 |
| P+ - Weak | 7 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 5 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Public real estate properties - report
- Average completion time for public works
Weaknesses
- Efficiency indicator - activities and delivery times (M2)
- Digitalization expenditure incidence
- Investment expenditure on digitalization per 1,000 inhabitants
- Service outsourcing
- Public Real Estate properties - management
- Anti-corruption measures undertaken
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Integrated Activity and Organisation Plan (PIAO) - Public Value | abs | 85.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| PIAO - Performance | abs | 85.0 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Efficiency indicator - activities and delivery times (M2) | abs | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Digitalization expenditure incidence | % | 0.16 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Investment expenditure on digitalization per 1,000 inhabitants | €/1,000 inhabitants | 959.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Service outsourcing | % | 5.47 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Subsidiary companies | % | 86.0 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Public real estate properties - report | abs | 80.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -1.3893 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Average completion time for public works | mean | 0.93 | High score for low values | 6 | High |
| Compliance with public works supervision | % | 34.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | abs | 57.2727 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
38 out of 100Chronological trend
Not availableBenchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
85/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
50/100
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 | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 4 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Graduated (from university) employees (category D)
Weaknesses
- Agile working employees out of total permanent employees
- Average of training days
- Total managers on total personnel
- Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers
- 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. | 53.77 | High score for low values | 2 | Medium |
| Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants | value per 1k inhab. | 1.0457 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Personnel in flexible employment out of total employees | % | 5.4347 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Average age | years | 52.4 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Graduated (from university) employees (category D) | % | 91.6667 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Agile working employees out of total permanent employees | % | 5.1205 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Average days of absence (except holidays and training) | days per person | 19.4 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Average of training days | days per person | 0.03 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| EQ (High qualification) /EP (High professionality) profiles in service out of total officials and EQ area | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Total managers on total personnel | % | 5.05 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Women managers on total managers | % | 41.79 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 157.9641 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
35 out of 100Chronological trend
Not availableBenchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
P.A. Bolzano
77/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
47/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
22/100
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 | 7 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 6 |
| PP+ - Good | 3 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- Services guaranteed in time (priority class B)
Weaknesses
- Hospital migration
- Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure
- Essential levels of care - global indicator
- Per capita investment in health protection
- Per capita investments in transport and the right to mobility
- Per capita investment in economic development and competitiveness
- Per capita current expenditure on social rights, social policies and family
- Per capita current expenditure on education and right to study per school-age population
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services and relations with citizens
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital migration | % | 16.0 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | value per 10k inhab. | 1.0945 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 12.5 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Services guaranteed in time (priority class B) | abs | 100.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Essential levels of care - global indicator | abs | 184.59 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 57.5 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita expenditure on health protection | € p.c. | 2,365.15 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in health protection | € p.c. | 60.25 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investments in transport and the right to mobility | € p.c. | 44.5 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investment in economic development and competitiveness | € p.c. | 20.56 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investment in land planning and housing construction | € p.c. | 22.04 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita current expenditure on social rights, social policies and family | € p.c. | 49.93 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita current expenditure on education and right to study per school-age population | €/school-age citizen | 145.08 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
33 out of 100Chronological trend
Not availableBenchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
P.A. Bolzano
90/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
61/100
Worst score
Calabria
Calabria
25/100
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 | 0 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 3 |
| PP+ - Good | 11 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
- Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years
Weaknesses
- TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Ordinary component
- TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Healthcare component
- Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers
- Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants
- Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year
- Incidence of direct awards to affiliated companies on total contracts - 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 66.67 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 12.44 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Ordinary component | days | 32.0 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Healthcare component | days | 15.56 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | 62.1635 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | value per 10k inhab. | 8.1577 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | 39.71 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years | % | 80.5 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Percentage of framework agreement contracts on total contracts – amount | % | 29.26 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| Incidence of direct awards to affiliated companies on total contracts - amount | % | 25.85 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
Rating
41 out of 100Chronological trend
Not availableBenchmark score
Benchmark
Sardegna
Sardegna
81/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
44/100
Worst score
Sicilia
Sicilia
21/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 7 |
| P+ - Weak* | 9 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 2 |
| PP+ - Good | 2 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
Weaknesses
- Per capita expenditure on environmental protection, enhancement and restoration
- Per capita investment in waste management
- Population exposed to landslide risk
Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per capita expenditure on environmental protection, enhancement and restoration | € p.c. | 1.82 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investment in the unified regional policy for sustainable development and the protection of land and environment | € p.c. | 2.77 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita current expenditure on protected areas, nature parks, nature conservation and afforestation | € p.c. | 2.72 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 81.8 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in air quality and pollution reduction | € p.c. | 1.3 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in integrated urban water management | € p.c. | 6.72 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 22.7 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in waste management | € p.c. | 0.3 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 39.4103 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 5.6067 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 7.2334 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita expenditure on soil defense | € p.c. | 7.58 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in soil defense | € p.c. | 18.88 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |