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
Calabria
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P+ - Weak
Rating
42 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 | 46 |
| Governance | 48 | 72 | 40 |
| Personnel management | 50 | 85 | 54 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 47 | 77 | 34 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 61 | 90 | 25 |
| Environment | 44 | 81 | 65 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
46 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 pressure per capita
- Capital account expenditure on total expenses
Weaknesses
- Financial autonomy
- Collection capacity
- Spending capacity
- Expenditure for accredited private facilities on expenditure for health services
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | 82.23 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 2,564.94 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Collection capacity | % | 71.79 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending capacity | % | 72.02 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending rigidity | % | 2.98 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Capital account expenditure on total expenses | % | 19.02 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Per capita debt from financing | € p.c. | 760.08 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Per capita debt to suppliers | € p.c. | 168.2 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Off-budget debts recognized and financed | % | 0.02 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 106.57 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -68.77 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Expenditure for accredited private facilities on expenditure for health services | % | 48.36 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 80.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
Rating
40 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
- Integrated Activity and Organisation Plan (PIAO) - Public Value
- Compliance with public works supervision
Weaknesses
- Efficiency indicator - activities and delivery times (M2)
- Digitalization expenditure incidence
- Investment expenditure on digitalization per 1,000 inhabitants
- Subsidiary companies
- 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 | 100.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| 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 | % | 0.04 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Investment expenditure on digitalization per 1,000 inhabitants | €/1,000 inhabitants | 97.46 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Service outsourcing | % | 4.35 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Subsidiary companies | % | 70.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Public real estate properties - report | abs | 52.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -0.3448 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Average completion time for public works | mean | 1.04 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Compliance with public works supervision | % | 82.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | abs | 50.9091 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
54 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
- Personnel in flexible employment out of total employees
- Average days of absence (except holidays and training)
- Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers
Weaknesses
- Average of training days
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. | 61.97 | High score for low values | 2 | Medium |
| Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants | value per 1k inhab. | 1.1354 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Personnel in flexible employment out of total employees | % | 1.7882 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Average age | years | 54.0 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Graduated (from university) employees (category D) | % | 78.9826 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Agile working employees out of total permanent employees | % | 26.3057 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Average days of absence (except holidays and training) | days per person | 12.6 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Average of training days | days per person | 0.01 | 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 | % | 4.26 | High score for low values | 2 | Medium |
| Women managers on total managers | % | 41.57 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 68.7508 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
34 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
- Per capita investment in health protection
Weaknesses
- Hospital migration
- Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure
- Services guaranteed in time (priority class B)
- Essential levels of care - global indicator
- Landline high-speed internet access covering
- Per capita expenditure on health protection
- Per capita investment in land planning and housing construction
- 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 | % | 21.3 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | value per 10k inhab. | 2.1271 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 12.9 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Services guaranteed in time (priority class B) | abs | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Essential levels of care - global indicator | abs | 135.25 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 36.1 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita expenditure on health protection | € p.c. | 2,236.91 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investment in health protection | € p.c. | 198.41 | High score for high values | 6 | High |
| Per capita investments in transport and the right to mobility | € p.c. | 140.66 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in economic development and competitiveness | € p.c. | 36.82 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in land planning and housing construction | € p.c. | 10.79 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita current expenditure on social rights, social policies and family | € p.c. | 65.59 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita current expenditure on education and right to study per school-age population | €/school-age citizen | 120.11 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
25 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
- TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Healthcare component
Weaknesses
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
- Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers
- Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year
- Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years
- Percentage of framework agreement contracts on total contracts – amount
- 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 | % | 62.5 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 39.02 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Ordinary component | days | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Healthcare component | days | -24.06 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | 56.7279 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | value per 10k inhab. | 2.5134 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | 68.8 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years | % | 33.47 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Percentage of framework agreement contracts on total contracts – amount | % | 94.71 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Incidence of direct awards to affiliated companies on total contracts - amount | % | 52.76 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
Rating
65 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
- Per capita investment in the unified regional policy for sustainable development and the protection of land and environment
- Air quality - PM 2.5
- Per capita investment in integrated urban water management
- Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources
- Per capita investment in soil defense
Weaknesses
- Per capita current expenditure on protected areas, nature parks, nature conservation and afforestation
- Per capita investment in air quality and pollution reduction
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. | 17.75 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in the unified regional policy for sustainable development and the protection of land and environment | € p.c. | 107.75 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Per capita current expenditure on protected areas, nature parks, nature conservation and afforestation | € p.c. | 2.3 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 45.0 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita investment in air quality and pollution reduction | € p.c. | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investment in integrated urban water management | € p.c. | 26.16 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 25.8 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in waste management | € p.c. | 2.3 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 76.4472 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 3.316 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 12.7631 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita expenditure on soil defense | € p.c. | 8.15 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in soil defense | € p.c. | 47.08 | High score for high values | 8 | High |