• Rating 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

Comparative values by:
Download Report All data

SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

P+ - Weak

Rating

42 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
70/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
52/100
Worst score
Molise
32/100

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* 7
PP - Satisfactory 6
PP+ - Good 6
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 79 43
Governance 55 78 50
Personnel management 48 74 34
Public services and relations with citizens 51 90 49
Public tenders and relations with suppliers 53 86 18
Environment 53 77 51

Administrative Capacity Index

Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators

1 Financial situation

P+ - Weak
Download All data

Rating

43 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
79/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Sicilia
15/100

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* 5
PP - Satisfactory 5
PP+ - Good 6
PPP - Very Good 0
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

  • Financial pressure per capita
  • New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities
  • Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds

Weaknesses

  • Financial autonomy
  • Collection capacity
  • Spending capacity
  • Debt per capita
  • EU funds management - effected payments

Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Financial autonomy % 84.17 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 86.4 low | Low
2022 84.17 low | Low
Low
Financial pressure per capita € p.c. 2,303.59 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2021 2247.0 high | High
2022 2303.59 high | High
High
Collection capacity % 77.67 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 79.0 low | Low
2022 77.67 low | Low
Low
Spending capacity % 78.98 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 79.26 low | Low
2022 78.98 low | Low
Low
Spending rigidity % 3.95 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2021 4.65 medium | Medium
2022 3.95 medium | Medium
Medium
Debt per capita € p.c. 1,491.14 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 1551.63 low | Low
2022 1491.14 low | Low
Low
Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues % 103.93 High score for high values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2021 96.33 high | High
2022 103.93 medium | Medium
Medium
New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities % 55.22 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2021 46.35 high | High
2022 55.22 high | High
High
Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds % 0.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2021 0.0 high | High
2022 0.0 high | High
High
Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita € p.c. -10.33 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2021 -10.2 medium | Medium
2022 -10.33 medium | Medium
Medium
EU funds management - effected payments % 28.0 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 28.0 low | Low
2022 28.0 low | Low
Low

2 Governance

PP - Satisfactory
Download All data

Rating

50 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
78/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
55/100
Worst score
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 2
P+ - Weak 5
PP - Satisfactory* 5
PP+ - Good 9
PPP - Very Good 0
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

  • E- Government
  • Public works incompleted
  • Public Real Estate properties - report

Weaknesses

  • Degree of digitization
  • Target achievement
  • Public Real Estate properties - management

Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
E- Government value 23.4 High score for high values 12
Year Value Evaluation
2021 9.0 medium | Medium
2022 23.4 high | High
High
Degree of digitization value 0.18 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 0.36 low | Low
2022 0.18 low | Low
Low
Target achievement value 101.0 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 98.4 low | Low
2022 101.0 low | Low
Low
Smart Working value 10.0 High score for high values 5 Trend not available Medium
Public works incompleted numero 0.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2021 6.31 low | Low
2022 0.0 high | High
High
Public Real Estate properties - report value 111.0 High score for high values 10 Trend not available High
Public Real Estate properties - management € p.c. -1.98 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 -1.89 low | Low
2022 -1.98 low | Low
Low
Subsidiary companies ABS 66.67 High score for high values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2021 44.44 low | Low
2022 66.67 medium | Medium
Medium
Anti-corruption measures undertaken value 15.6 High score for high values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2021 13.2 medium | Medium
2022 15.6 medium | Medium
Medium

3 Personnel management

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

34 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
74/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
48/100
Worst score
Molise
28/100

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 6
PP - Satisfactory 4
PP+ - Good 6
PPP - Very Good 0
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Average age
  • Average of training days

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. 51.88 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2021 55.44 medium | Medium
2022 51.88 medium | Medium
Medium
Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants val./1.000 residents 1.12 High score for low values 5 Trend not available Medium
Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel % 1.11 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2021 1.34 medium | Medium
2022 1.11 medium | Medium
Medium
Average age years 54.98 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 55.9 low | Low
2022 54.98 low | Low
Low
Personnel with a degree on total personnel % 47.93 High score for high values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2021 44.41 medium | Medium
2022 47.93 medium | Medium
Medium
Average days of absence (sick leave) average days 17.72 High score for low values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2021 8.71 medium | Medium
2022 17.72 medium | Medium
Medium
Total managers on total personnel % 3.99 High score for low values 5 Trend not available Medium
Women managers on total managers % 38.6 High score for high values 4 Trend not available Medium
Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers % n.d. High score for low values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Average of training days average days 0.03 High score for high values 1 Trend not available Low
Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers variance n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.

4 Public services and relations with citizens

P+ - Weak
Download All data

Rating

49 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Toscana
90/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Calabria
Molise
Campania
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 8
P+ - Weak* 4
PP - Satisfactory 1
PP+ - Good 5
PPP - Very Good 2
PPP+ - Excellent 1

Strengths

  • Integrated home care services
  • Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
  • FOIA register: accepted requests

Weaknesses

  • Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (general)
  • Hospital emigration
  • Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
  • Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita

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 (general) value 11.0 High score for high values 5 Trend not available Medium
Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (general) value 0.0 High score for high values 1 Trend not available Low
Landline high-speed internet access covering % 16.4 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2021 16.4 medium | Medium
2022 16.4 medium | Medium
Medium
Hospital emigration % 14.5 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 16.6 low | Low
2022 14.5 low | Low
Low
Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants v/ 10k inhabitants 42.0 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 42.0 low | Low
2022 42.0 low | Low
Low
Integrated home care services % 4.3 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2021 3.8 high | High
2022 4.3 high | High
High
Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants v/ 10k inhabitants 1.04 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2021 1.0 high | High
2022 1.04 high | High
High
Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita € p.c. 15.0 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 147.6 low | Low
2022 15.0 low | Low
Low
Citizens involvement value 7.8 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2021 2.6 medium | Medium
2022 7.8 medium | Medium
Medium
FOIA register: accepted requests % 94.59 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2021 94.7 high | High
2022 94.59 high | High
High

5 Public tenders and relations with suppliers

F - Fallible
Download All data

Rating

18 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Liguria
Umbria
86/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
Abruzzo
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 4
P+ - Weak 4
PP - Satisfactory 5
PP+ - Good 5
PPP - Very Good 2
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

  • Recurring contractors in direct procurements

Weaknesses

  • Direct procurements on global public tenders - number
  • Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
  • 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 % 13.67 High score for low values 14
Year Value Evaluation
2021 14.49 low | Low
2022 13.67 high | High
High
Direct procurements on global public tenders - number % 83.05 High score for low values 1 Trend not available Low
Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount % 36.69 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 79.99 low | Low
2022 36.69 low | Low
Low
Timeliness of payments indicator days 62.0 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2021 16.0 medium | Medium
2022 62.0 low | Low
Low
Per capita debt amount vs suppliers € p.c. n.d. High score for low values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens v/ 10k inhabitants n.d. High score for low values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year % n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.

6 Environment

PP - Satisfactory
Download All data

Rating

51 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
77/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
Toscana
Liguria
29/100

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* 7
PP+ - Good 6
PPP - Very Good 0
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

  • Contaminated sites

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 % 81.8 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2021 77.8 medium | Medium
2022 81.8 medium | Medium
Medium
Land consumption % 5.02 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2021 5.0 high | High
2022 5.02 medium | Medium
Medium
Contaminated sites thousandths 0.6 High score for low values 12
Year Value Evaluation
2021 0.6 high | High
2022 0.6 high | High
High
Urban waste disposal into dump % 29.2 High score for low values 7
Year Value Evaluation
2021 34.4 medium | Medium
2022 29.2 medium | Medium
Medium
Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering % 5.0 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2021 5.0 high | High
2022 5.0 medium | Medium
Medium
Population exposed to landslide risk % 5.6 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2021 5.8 low | Low
2022 5.6 low | Low
Low
Population exposed to flood risk % 7.2 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2021 6.1 medium | Medium
2022 7.2 medium | Medium
Medium
Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources % 42.4 High score for high values 7
Year Value Evaluation
2021 51.0 high | High
2022 42.4 medium | Medium
Medium