This data has been published here as a demo of our services: it refers to the Regions, analyzed in 2021.
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
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
70/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
52/100
Worst score
Molise
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 | 57 |
| Governance | 55 | 78 | 64 |
| Personnel management | 48 | 74 | 47 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 51 | 90 | 62 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 53 | 86 | 54 |
| Environment | 53 | 77 | 77 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
57 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
79/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Sicilia
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
- Collection capacity
- Debt per capita
- Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues
- Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds
Weaknesses
- Financial pressure per capita
- Spending rigidity
- Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | 86.72 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 8,965.26 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Collection capacity | % | 92.58 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Spending capacity | % | 85.13 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Spending rigidity | % | 18.99 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Debt per capita | € p.c. | 297.27 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 123.1 | High score for high values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities | % | 65.41 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -617.68 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 45.0 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium |
Rating
64 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
78/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
55/100
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 | 2 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good* | 9 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- E- Government
- Degree of digitization
- Smart Working
- Anti-corruption measures undertaken
Weaknesses
- 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 | 31.5 | High score for high values | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Degree of digitization | value | 1.42 | High score for high values | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Target achievement | value | 10.0 | High score for high values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Smart Working | value | 11.0 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Public works incompleted | numero | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | Trend not available | N.A. | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - report | value | 11.0 | High score for high values | 5 | Trend not available | Medium | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -8.13 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Subsidiary companies | ABS | 76.19 | High score for high values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | value | 25.8 | High score for high values | 12 |
|
High |
Rating
47 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
74/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
48/100
Worst score
Molise
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
- Average age
- Total managers on total personnel
- Women managers on total managers
Weaknesses
- Per capita personnel expenditure
- Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants
- Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
- 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. | 1,917.94 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants | val./1.000 residents | 34.32 | High score for low values | 1 | Trend not available | Low | |||||||||
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 17.25 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Average age | years | 48.52 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 43.93 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Average days of absence (sick leave) | average days | 17.68 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Total managers on total personnel | % | 2.46 | High score for low values | 10 | Trend not available | High | |||||||||
| Women managers on total managers | % | 43.56 | High score for high values | 8 | Trend not available | High | |||||||||
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 99.03 | High score for low values | 4 | Trend not available | Medium | |||||||||
| Average of training days | average days | 0.16 | High score for high values | 1 | Trend not available | Low | |||||||||
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | 145.14 | High score for high values | 5 | Trend not available | Medium |
Rating
62 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Toscana
Toscana
90/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Calabria
Molise
Campania
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
- Efficiency indicator - reporting (general)
- Hospital emigration
- Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita
Weaknesses
- Integrated home care services
- Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
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 | 111.0 | High score for high values | 10 | Trend not available | High | |||||||||
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (general) | value | 11.0 | High score for high values | 5 | Trend not available | Medium | |||||||||
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 20.0 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Hospital emigration | % | 4.4 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | v/ 10k inhabitants | 111.7 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Integrated home care services | % | 0.5 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | v/ 10k inhabitants | 2.65 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita | € p.c. | 9.4 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Citizens involvement | value | 6.5 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| FOIA register: accepted requests | % | 86.11 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium |
Rating
54 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Liguria
Umbria
Liguria
Umbria
86/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
Abruzzo
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
- Timeliness of payments indicator
- Per capita debt amount vs suppliers
- Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year
Weaknesses
- Recurring contractors in direct procurements
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - number
- Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens
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 | % | 43.2 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 81.46 | High score for low values | 1 | Trend not available | Low | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 22.87 | High score for low values | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Timeliness of payments indicator | days | -5.26 | High score for low values | 16 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Per capita debt amount vs suppliers | € p.c. | 0.85 | High score for low values | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens | v/ 10k inhabitants | 5.93 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | 82.0 | High score for high values | 14 |
|
High |
Rating
77 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
P.A. Bolzano
77/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
Toscana
Liguria
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
- Land consumption
- Contaminated sites
- Urban waste disposal into dump
- Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
- Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources
Weaknesses
- Air quality - PM 2.5
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 | % | 100.0 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | % | 2.72 | High score for low values | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | thousandths | 0.3 | High score for low values | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | % | 2.2 | High score for low values | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 2.7 | High score for low values | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 2.3 | High score for low values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 9.8 | High score for low values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 241.1 | High score for high values | 14 |
|
High |