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
Basilicata
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P - Poor
Rating
28 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 | 8 |
| Governance | 43 | 65 | 25 |
| Personnel management | 51 | 87 | 31 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 51 | 74 | 36 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 60 | 100 | 18 |
| Environment | 51 | 69 | 63 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
8 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
Weaknesses
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Collection capacity | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Spending capacity | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Spending rigidity | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Per capita debt from financing | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Off-budget debts recognized and financed | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -18.4518 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 76.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
Rating
25 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
- Compliance with public works supervision
Weaknesses
- Working from home (WFH)
- Public Real Estate properties - report
- Subsidiary companies
- Anti-corruption measures undertaken
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E- Government | absolute value | 104.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Degree of digitalization | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Performance | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Working from home (WFH) | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Public Real Estate properties - report | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -0.0248 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Subsidiary companies | absolute value | 66.6667 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | absolute value | 4.4 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Service outsourcing | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Efficiency indicator - reporting | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision | absolute value | 10.0 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Average completion time for public works | mean value | 1.029 | High score for low values | 2 | Medium |
| Compliance with public works supervision | % | 65.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
Rating
31 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
- Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
Weaknesses
- Average age
- Average of training days
- Women managers on total 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. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants | val./1.000 ab. | 1.8615 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 0.2108 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Average age | years | 56.7703 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 45.5455 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Average days of absence (except holidays and training) | days per person | 13.7528 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Average of training days | days | 0.035 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Total managers on total personnel | % | 4.1041 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Women managers on total managers | % | 26.8293 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
36 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
- Landline high-speed internet access covering
- Hospital migration
- Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure
- Essential levels of care - territorial area
- Essential levels of care - hospital area
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 | % | 26.9 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita expenditure on transport and right to mobility | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Per capita expenditure on economic development and competitiveness | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Per capita expenditure on labour policies and vocational education | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Hospital migration | % | 26.9 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 75.1 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Integrated Home Care services | % | 3.9 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 1.7 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 13.2 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Essential levels of care - prevention area | absolute value | 79.6301 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Essential levels of care - territorial area | absolute value | 64.2247 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Essential levels of care - hospital area | absolute value | 63.691 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Services guaranteed in time (priority class B) | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
Rating
18 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
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 | % | 72.7074 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 8.8269 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Timeliness of payments indicator | days | 11.1 | High score for low values | 10 | Medium |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
63 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
- Air quality - PM 2.5
- Land consumption
- Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
- Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources
- Population exposed to flood risk
Weaknesses
- Urban waste disposal at landfill
- 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 | % | 8.3 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Land consumption | % | 3.17 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Contaminated sites | ‰ inhabitants | 4.0 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 44.0 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 3.2 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 111.5 | High score for high values | 12 | High |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 7.0 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 1.1 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Per capita expenditure on sustainable development and environmental protection | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |