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
Abruzzo
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P+ - Weak
Rating
42 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
68/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
50/100
Worst score
Basilicata
Molise
Basilicata
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 | 4 |
| P+ - Weak* | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 9 |
| 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 | 49 | 79 | 44 |
| Governance | 43 | 65 | 35 |
| Personnel management | 51 | 87 | 36 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 51 | 74 | 49 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 60 | 100 | 35 |
| Environment | 51 | 69 | 61 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
44 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
79/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
49/100
Worst score
Sicilia
Molise
Sicilia
Molise
6/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 3 |
| P - Poor | 3 |
| P+ - Weak* | 2 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 6 |
| PP+ - Good | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Spending rigidity
- Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds
Weaknesses
- Collection capacity
- Spending capacity
- Off-budget debts recognized and financed
- EU funds management - effected payments
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | 86.6458 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 2,599.1241 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Collection capacity | % | 68.6766 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending capacity | % | 71.6436 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Spending rigidity | % | 2.2903 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Debt per capita | € p.c. | 819.6601 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Off-budget debts recognized and financed | % | 0.57 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 103.7273 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities | % | 64.5598 | 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. | -5.3816 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 56.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
35 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
65/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
43/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
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* | 9 |
| P+ - Weak | 6 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 1 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- E- Government
- Public Real Estate properties - report
- Average completion time for public works
Weaknesses
- Degree of digitalization
- Performance
- Working from home (WFH)
- Public Real Estate properties - management
- Subsidiary companies
- Service outsourcing
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E- Government | absolute value | 119.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Degree of digitalization | absolute value | 0.195 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Performance | absolute value | 10.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Working from home (WFH) | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Public Real Estate properties - report | absolute value | 111.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -1.9608 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Subsidiary companies | absolute value | 33.3333 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | absolute value | 8.0 | High score for high values | 5 | Medium |
| Service outsourcing | % | 4.61 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Efficiency indicator - reporting | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Average completion time for public works | mean value | 0.7739 | High score for low values | 4 | High |
| Compliance with public works supervision | % | 35.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
Rating
36 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
87/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
27/100
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 | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 5 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
Weaknesses
- Average of training days
- Total managers on total personnel
- Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers
- Degree of differentiation of bonus paid 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. | 50.232 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants | val./1.000 ab. | 0.9859 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 0.9971 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Average age | years | 54.476 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 51.5974 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Average days of absence (except holidays and training) | days per person | 15.5479 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Average of training days | days | 0.0332 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Total managers on total personnel | % | 4.7923 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Women managers on total managers | % | 43.3333 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 154.5417 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | 0.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
Rating
49 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Toscana
Toscana
74/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Puglia
Puglia
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 | 6 |
| P+ - Weak* | 3 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 8 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Integrated Home Care services
- Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- Services guaranteed in time (priority class B)
Weaknesses
- Per capita expenditure on economic development and competitiveness
- Per capita expenditure on labour policies and vocational education
- Hospital migration
- Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services and relations with citizens
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 40.7 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita expenditure on transport and right to mobility | € p.c. | 165.4911 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Per capita expenditure on economic development and competitiveness | € p.c. | 3.0801 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita expenditure on labour policies and vocational education | € p.c. | 16.7702 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Hospital migration | % | 14.9 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 43.1 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Integrated Home Care services | % | 4.7 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 1.0345 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 12.5 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Essential levels of care - prevention area | absolute value | 77.7394 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Essential levels of care - territorial area | absolute value | 68.4606 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Essential levels of care - hospital area | absolute value | 69.2523 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Services guaranteed in time (priority class B) | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
Rating
35 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Liguria
Liguria
100/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
60/100
Worst score
Basilicata
Basilicata
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* | 2 |
| P+ - Weak | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 2 |
| PP+ - Good | 9 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
- Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years
Weaknesses
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - number
- Timeliness of payments indicator
- Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants
- 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 | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 87.1827 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 23.6417 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Timeliness of payments indicator | days | 74.0 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | 10.873 | High score for low values | 8 | Medium |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 11.1666 | High score for low values | 2 | Low |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | 34.82 | High score for high values | 2 | Low |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years | % | 86.22 | High score for high values | 16 | High |
Rating
61 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Valle d'Aosta
Valle d'Aosta
69/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Liguria
Liguria
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 | 5 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good* | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Land consumption
- Contaminated sites
- Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
Weaknesses
- Population exposed to landslide risk
Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 81.8 | High score for low values | 6 | Medium |
| Land consumption | % | 5.02 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Contaminated sites | ‰ inhabitants | 0.6 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 27.5 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 5.1 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 45.9 | High score for high values | 6 | Medium |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 5.6 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 7.2 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Per capita expenditure on sustainable development and environmental protection | € p.c. | 14.5734 | High score for high values | 6 | Medium |