• 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

Campania

Comparative values by:

SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

P+ - Weak

Rating

44 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
68/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
50/100
Worst score
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 50
Governance 43 65 34
Personnel management 51 87 71
Public services and relations with citizens 51 74 33
Public tenders and relations with suppliers 60 100 46
Environment 51 69 36

Administrative Capacity Index

Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators

1 Financial situation

PP - Satisfactory
Download All data

Rating

50 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
79/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
49/100
Worst score
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

  • Financial pressure per capita
  • Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds
  • Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita

Weaknesses

  • Per capita debt from financing
  • Off-budget debts recognized and financed
  • Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues
  • 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 % 87.5357 High score for high values 4 Medium
Financial pressure per capita € p.c. 2,423.2846 High score for low values 8 High
Collection capacity % 81.6249 High score for high values 5 Medium
Spending capacity % 77.5236 High score for high values 5 Medium
Spending rigidity % 3.2185 High score for low values 4 Medium
Per capita debt from financing € p.c. 1,410.0509 High score for low values 1 Low
Off-budget debts recognized and financed % 0.28 High score for low values 1 Low
Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues % 97.2523 High score for high values 1 Low
New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities % 64.0248 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. 1.406 High score for high values 8 High
EU funds management - effected payments % 60.0 High score for high values 1 Low

2 Governance

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

34 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
65/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
43/100
Worst score
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

  • Degree of digitalization
  • Compliance with public works supervision

Weaknesses

  • E- Government
  • Public real estate properties - report
  • 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 110.0 High score for high values 1 Low
Degree of digitalization absolute value 7.5 High score for high values 8 High
Performance absolute value 110.0 High score for high values 4 Medium
Working from home (WFH) absolute value 101.0 High score for high values 4 Medium
Public real estate properties - report absolute value 1.0 High score for high values 1 Low
Public Real Estate properties - management € p.c. -0.9244 High score for high values 1 Low
Subsidiary companies absolute value 62.5 High score for high values 1 Low
Anti-corruption measures undertaken absolute value 8.8 High score for high values 5 Medium
Service outsourcing % 5.93 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 n.d. High score for low values 0 N.A.
Compliance with public works supervision % 94.0 High score for high values 8 High

3 Personnel management

PP+ - Good
Download All data

Rating

71 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
87/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
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

  • Per capita personnel expenditure
  • Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants
  • Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
  • Personnel with a degree on total personnel
  • Average days of absence (except holidays and training)
  • Women managers on total managers

Weaknesses

  • 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. 39.4072 High score for low values 10 High
Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants val./1.000 ab. 0.8115 High score for low values 10 High
Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel % 0.4388 High score for low values 10 High
Average age years 52.1339 High score for low values 5 Medium
Personnel with a degree on total personnel % 56.5888 High score for high values 8 High
Average days of absence (except holidays and training) days per person 9.9026 High score for low values 8 High
Average of training days days 0.6846 High score for high values 5 Medium
Total managers on total personnel % 3.3715 High score for low values 5 Medium
Women managers on total managers % 47.7124 High score for high values 8 High
Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers % 275.3141 High score for low values 1 Low
Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers variance 11.3559 High score for high values 1 Low

4 Public services and relations with citizens

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

33 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Toscana
74/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
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

  • Landline high-speed internet access covering

Weaknesses

  • Per capita expenditure on labour policies and vocational education
  • Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
  • 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 % 55.1 High score for high values 8 High
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. 15.4349 High score for high values 1 Low
Hospital migration % 9.2 High score for low values 4 Medium
Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants val./10.000 ab. 18.8 High score for high values 1 Low
Integrated Home Care services % 2.3 High score for high values 4 Medium
Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants val./10.000 ab. 2.7043 High score for low values 4 Medium
Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure € p.c. 12.5 High score for low values 1 Low
Essential levels of care - prevention area absolute value 78.3738 High score for high values 4 Medium
Essential levels of care - territorial area absolute value 57.5227 High score for high values 1 Low
Essential levels of care - hospital area absolute value 62.6782 High score for high values 1 Low
Services guaranteed in time (priority class B) absolute value 96.7388 High score for high values 4 Medium

5 Public tenders and relations with suppliers

P+ - Weak
Download All data

Rating

46 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Liguria
100/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
60/100
Worst score
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 the fiscal year

Weaknesses

  • Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers
  • Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years

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 % 79.3537 High score for low values 4 Medium
Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount % 11.6657 High score for low values 4 Medium
Timeliness of payments indicator days 4.69 High score for low values 10 Medium
Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers € p.c. 22.8278 High score for low values 2 Low
Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants val./10.000 ab. 1.5236 High score for low values 8 Medium
Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year % 86.4 High score for high values 16 High
Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years % 44.19 High score for high values 2 Low

6 Environment

P - Poor
Download All data

Rating

36 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Valle d'Aosta
69/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
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

  • Urban waste disposal at landfill
  • Population exposed to flood risk

Weaknesses

  • Land consumption
  • Contaminated sites
  • Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
  • 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 % 79.4 High score for low values 6 Medium
Land consumption % 10.49 High score for low values 1 Low
Contaminated sites ‰ inhabitants 5.8 High score for low values 1 Low
Urban waste disposal at landfill % 0.0 High score for low values 10 High
Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering % 10.5 High score for low values 1 Low
Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources % 33.0 High score for high values 6 Medium
Population exposed to landslide risk % 5.0 High score for low values 1 Low
Population exposed to flood risk % 5.1 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.