• 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

Molise

Compare
Comparative values by:
Download Report All data

SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

P - Poor

Rating

32 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

Administrative capacity Index: summary of the 6 macro-indicators

Administrative Capacity Index

Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators

1 Financial situation

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

35 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

Strengths

  • New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities

Weaknesses

  • Financial autonomy
  • Collection capacity
  • Debt per capita
  • Deficit/surplus on health expenditure 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 % 74.95 High score for high values 1 Low
Financial pressure per capita € p.c. 2,481.27 High score for low values 4 Medium
Collection capacity % 82.94 High score for high values 1 Low
Spending capacity % 83.15 High score for high values 5 Medium
Spending rigidity % 6.02 High score for low values 5 Medium
Debt per capita € p.c. 1,546.58 High score for low values 1 Low
Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues % 102.02 High score for high values 4 Medium
New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities % 44.22 High score for low values 8 High
Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds % 0.7 High score for low values 4 Medium
Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita € p.c. -100.06 High score for high values 1 Low
EU funds management - effected payments % 34.0 High score for high values 1 Low

2 Governance

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

24 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

Strengths

  • Degree of digitization
  • Public works incompleted

Weaknesses

  • E- Government
  • Smart Working
  • Public Real Estate properties - management
  • Anti-corruption measures undertaken

Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
E- Government value 1.2 High score for high values 1 Low
Degree of digitization value 0.35 High score for high values 12 High
Target achievement value n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Smart Working value 0.0 High score for high values 1 Low
Public works incompleted numero 0.0 High score for low values 8 High
Public Real Estate properties - report value n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Public Real Estate properties - management € p.c. -1.24 High score for high values 1 Low
Subsidiary companies ABS n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Anti-corruption measures undertaken value 11.0 High score for high values 1 Low

3 Personnel management

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

28 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

Strengths

  • Average days of absence (sick leave)
  • Women managers on total managers

Weaknesses

  • Per capita personnel expenditure
  • Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
  • Average age
  • Personnel with a degree on total personnel
  • Total managers on total personnel
  • Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers
  • 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. 130.45 High score for low values 1 Low
Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants val./1.000 residents 1.57 High score for low values 5 Trend not available Medium
Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel % 16.12 High score for low values 1 Low
Average age years 57.86 High score for low values 1 Low
Personnel with a degree on total personnel % 36.03 High score for high values 1 Low
Average days of absence (sick leave) average days 12.96 High score for low values 8 High
Total managers on total personnel % 5.9 High score for low values 1 Trend not available Low
Women managers on total managers % 48.15 High score for high values 8 Trend not available High
Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers % 100.0 High score for low values 1 Trend not available Low
Average of training days average days 0.24 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 - Poor
Download All data

Rating

23 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

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • Landline high-speed internet access covering
  • Hospital emigration
  • Citizens involvement

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 n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (general) value n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.
Landline high-speed internet access covering % 6.4 High score for high values 1 Low
Hospital emigration % 27.3 High score for low values 1 Low
Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants v/ 10k inhabitants 69.5 High score for high values 5 Medium
Integrated home care services % 3.2 High score for high values 5 Medium
Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants v/ 10k inhabitants 2.58 High score for low values 5 Medium
Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita € p.c. 13.5 High score for low values 5 Medium
Citizens involvement value 2.6 High score for high values 1 Low
FOIA register: accepted requests % n.d. High score for high values 0 Trend not available N.A.

5 Public tenders and relations with suppliers

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

32 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

Strengths

  • Timeliness of payments indicator

Weaknesses

  • Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
  • Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year

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 % 16.67 High score for low values 7 Medium
Direct procurements on global public tenders - number % 66.18 High score for low values 7 Trend not available Medium
Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount % 36.18 High score for low values 1 Low
Timeliness of payments indicator days -2.77 High score for low values 16 High
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 % 0.0 High score for high values 1 Low

6 Environment

PP+ - Good
Download All data

Rating

76 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

Strengths

  • Air quality - PM 2.5
  • Land consumption
  • Contaminated sites
  • Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
  • Population exposed to flood risk
  • Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources

Weaknesses

  • Urban waste disposal into dump
  • 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 % 33.3 High score for low values 12 High
Land consumption % 3.92 High score for low values 12 High
Contaminated sites thousandths 0.3 High score for low values 12 High
Urban waste disposal into dump % 79.3 High score for low values 1 Low
Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering % 3.9 High score for low values 12 High
Population exposed to landslide risk % 6.1 High score for low values 1 Low
Population exposed to flood risk % 2.3 High score for low values 12 High
Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources % 83.0 High score for high values 14 High