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
P.A. Bolzano
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
PP+ - Good
Rating
60 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 | 59 |
| Governance | 48 | 72 | 45 |
| Personnel management | 50 | 85 | 35 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 47 | 77 | 77 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 61 | 90 | 90 |
| Environment | 44 | 81 | 57 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
59 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
- Collection capacity
- Capital account expenditure on total expenses
- Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues
- Expenditure for accredited private facilities on expenditure for health services
- EU funds management - effected payments
Weaknesses
- Financial pressure per capita
- Spending rigidity
- Per capita debt to suppliers
- Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | 87.9857 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 10,375.72 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Collection capacity | % | 92.6695 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Spending capacity | % | 83.98 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Spending rigidity | % | 18.9607 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Capital account expenditure on total expenses | % | 14.3534 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Per capita debt from financing | € p.c. | 618.6443 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Per capita debt to suppliers | € p.c. | 200.138 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| 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 | % | 117.5289 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -673.42 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Expenditure for accredited private facilities on expenditure for health services | % | 33.03 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 101.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
Rating
45 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
- Digitalization expenditure incidence
- Investment expenditure on digitalization per 1,000 inhabitants
- Public real estate properties - report
Weaknesses
- Integrated Activity and Organisation Plan (PIAO) - Public Value
- Efficiency indicator - activities and delivery times (M2)
- Service outsourcing
- Public Real Estate properties - management
- Compliance with public works supervision
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 | 75.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| PIAO - Performance | abs | 90.0 | 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 | % | 1.29 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Investment expenditure on digitalization per 1,000 inhabitants | €/1,000 inhabitants | 18,034.4119 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Service outsourcing | % | 5.7 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Subsidiary companies | % | 86.0 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Public real estate properties - report | abs | 66.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -8.6257 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Average completion time for public works | mean | 1.04 | High score for low values | 3 | Medium |
| Compliance with public works supervision | % | 28.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | abs | 74.5455 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
Rating
35 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
- Average age
- Total managers on total personnel
Weaknesses
- Per capita personnel expenditure
- Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants
- Personnel in flexible employment out of total employees
- Agile working employees out of total permanent employees
- Average of training days
- Provided bonus out of allocated ones 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. | 2,166.7094 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants | value per 1k inhab. | 33.0023 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Personnel in flexible employment out of total employees | % | 18.9346 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Average age | years | 48.8 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Graduated (from university) employees (category D) | % | 81.3324 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Agile working employees out of total permanent employees | % | 13.7302 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Average days of absence (except holidays and training) | days per person | 18.9 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Average of training days | days per person | 0.29 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| EQ (High qualification) /EP (High professionality) profiles in service out of total officials and EQ area | % | n.c. | High score for low values | 2 | Medium |
| Total managers on total personnel | % | 2.49 | High score for low values | 4 | High |
| Women managers on total managers | % | 43.76 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 98.478 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
77 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
- Hospital migration
- Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure
- Per capita expenditure on health protection
- 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 investment in land planning and housing construction
- 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
Weaknesses
- Services guaranteed in time (priority class B)
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 | % | 4.7 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | value per 10k inhab. | 2.8123 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 7.4 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Services guaranteed in time (priority class B) | abs | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Essential levels of care - global indicator | abs | 206.4 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Per capita expenditure on health protection | € p.c. | 2,992.1864 | High score for high values | 6 | High |
| Per capita investment in health protection | € p.c. | 151.526 | High score for high values | 6 | High |
| Per capita investments in transport and the right to mobility | € p.c. | 500.6967 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Per capita investment in economic development and competitiveness | € p.c. | 139.8453 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Per capita investment in land planning and housing construction | € p.c. | 184.6596 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Per capita current expenditure on social rights, social policies and family | € p.c. | 1,274.7491 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Per capita current expenditure on education and right to study per school-age population | €/school-age citizen | 11,459.5954 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
Rating
90 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
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - number
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
- TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Ordinary component
- TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Healthcare component
- 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
Weaknesses
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 | % | 53.35 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 4.71 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Ordinary component | days | -10.3 | High score for low values | 16 | High |
| TPI (Timeliness of Payment Indicator) - Healthcare component | days | -7.2 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | 1.3981 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | value per 10k inhab. | 2.0859 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | 87.95 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years | % | 76.73 | High score for high values | 10 | High |
| Percentage of framework agreement contracts on total contracts – amount | % | 11.98 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Incidence of direct awards to affiliated companies on total contracts - amount | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 4 | High |
Rating
57 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 current expenditure on protected areas, nature parks, nature conservation and afforestation
- Per capita investment in integrated urban water management
- Urban waste disposal at landfill
- Per capita investment in waste management
- Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources
Weaknesses
- 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 air quality and pollution reduction
- Per capita investment in soil defense
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. | 24.2236 | 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. | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita current expenditure on protected areas, nature parks, nature conservation and afforestation | € p.c. | 71.703 | High score for high values | 6 | High |
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 100.0 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investment in air quality and pollution reduction | € p.c. | 0.0118 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita investment in integrated urban water management | € p.c. | 31.2869 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 1.1 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita investment in waste management | € p.c. | 6.9299 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 135.3332 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 2.3137 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 9.8067 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita expenditure on soil defense | € p.c. | 12.1356 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Per capita investment in soil defense | € p.c. | 0.4469 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |