• 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

Emilia-Romagna

Comparative values by:

SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

PP+ - Good

Rating

71 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

71/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
Molise
33/100

Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class

Rating class Number of administrations
ND - Unavailable 0
F - Fallible 0
P - Poor 3
P+ - Weak 5
PP - Satisfactory 6
PP+ - Good* 7
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 56 91 91
Governance 56 82 71
Personnel management 54 95 66
Public services and relations with citizens 54 88 88
Public tenders and relations with suppliers 44 84 58
Environment 55 94 31

Administrative Capacity Index

Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators

1 Financial situation

PPP+ - Excellent

Rating

91 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

91/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
Basilicata
20/100

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 6
PP - Satisfactory 5
PP+ - Good 7
PPP - Very Good 0
PPP+ - Excellent* 1

Strengths

  • Financial autonomy
  • Spending capacity
  • Spending rigidity
  • Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues
  • New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities
  • Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds
  • Debt per capita
  • Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita
  • EU funds management - effected payments

Weaknesses

Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Financial autonomy % 92.79 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 93.9 high | High
2021 92.79 high | High
High
Financial pressure per capita € p.c. 2,322.25 High score for low values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2322.9 medium | Medium
2021 2322.25 medium | Medium
Medium
Collection capacity % 88.85 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 85.2 medium | Medium
2021 88.85 medium | Medium
Medium
Spending capacity % 93.05 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 84.4 medium | Medium
2021 93.05 high | High
High
Spending rigidity % 2.16 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2.4 high | High
2021 2.16 high | High
High
Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues % 96.37 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 104.0 medium | Medium
2021 96.37 high | High
High
New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities % 47.76 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 57.8 medium | Medium
2021 47.76 high | High
High
Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds % 0.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.0 high | High
2021 0.0 high | High
High
Debt per capita € p.c. 839.1 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 986.7 high | High
2021 839.1 high | High
High
Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita € p.c. 20.81 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.0 high | High
2021 20.81 high | High
High
EU funds management - effected payments % 55.0 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 34.0 high | High
2021 55.0 high | High
High

2 Governance

PP+ - Good

Rating

71 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
Molise
Sardegna
30/100

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 3
PP+ - Good* 8
PPP - Very Good 2
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

  • E- Government
  • Target achievement
  • Smart Working
  • Public works incompleted
  • Anti-corruption measures undertaken
  • Court of Auditors - update

Weaknesses

  • Public Real Estate properties - management
  • Subsidiary companies

Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance

Indicator name Unit of measure Value Scoring criteria Score Trend Evaluation of the indicator
Open data availability v.a. 750.0 High score for high values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 360.9 medium | Medium
2021 750.0 medium | Medium
Medium
E- Government v.a. 16.0 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 4.0 low | Low
2021 16.0 high | High
High
Degree of digitization v.a. 0.6 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 9.0 high | High
2021 0.6 medium | Medium
Medium
Target achievement v.a. 110.5 High score for high values 12
Year Value Evaluation
2020 86.0 low | Low
2021 110.5 high | High
High
Smart Working v.a. 11.0 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
High
Public works incompleted % 1.7 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2.56 medium | Medium
2021 1.7 high | High
High
Public Real Estate properties - wide report v.a. 1,010.0 High score for high values 4
Year Value Evaluation
2020 4.0 medium | Medium
2021 1010.0 medium | Medium
Medium
Public Real Estate properties - management € p.c. -2.49 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 -2.44 low | Low
2021 -2.49 low | Low
Low
Subsidiary companies % 53.33 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 69.33 medium | Medium
2021 53.33 low | Low
Low
Anti-corruption measures undertaken v.a. 14.4 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 18.0 high | High
2021 14.4 high | High
High
Court of Auditors - update v.a. 2.0 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
High

3 Personnel management

PP+ - Good

Rating

66 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Lombardia
95/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
Molise
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 4
P+ - Weak 5
PP - Satisfactory 5
PP+ - Good* 4
PPP - Very Good 2
PPP+ - Excellent 1

Strengths

  • Per capita personnel expenditure
  • Personnel expenditure on current expenditure
  • Personnel with a degree on total personnel
  • Managers on population

Weaknesses

  • Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers

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. 39.31 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 39.4 high | High
2021 39.31 high | High
High
Personnel expenditure on current expenditure % 1.64 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1.7 high | High
2021 1.64 high | High
High
Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure % 0.34 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 0.3 medium | Medium
2021 0.34 medium | Medium
Medium
Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel % 3.63 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 4.4 low | Low
2021 3.63 medium | Medium
Medium
Average age a. 53.43 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 52.2 high | High
2021 53.43 medium | Medium
Medium
Personnel with a degree on total personnel % 57.04 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
High
Average days of absence (sick leave) gg./pers. 7.45 High score for low values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 8.4 medium | Medium
2021 7.45 medium | Medium
Medium
Managers on population 0.23 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
High
Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers % 100.0 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 100.0 low | Low
2021 100.0 low | Low
Low
Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers v.a. 86.02 High score for high values 5
Year Value Evaluation
2020 95.7 medium | Medium
2021 86.02 medium | Medium
Medium

4 Public services and relations with citizens

PPP - Very Good

Rating

88 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

88/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
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 6
P+ - Weak 4
PP - Satisfactory 4
PP+ - Good 5
PPP - Very Good* 2
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

  • Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable)
  • Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable)
  • Online services
  • Landline high-speed internet access covering
  • Hospital emigration
  • Beds in nursing homes (BES)
  • Integrated home care services
  • Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita
  • Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties
  • Citizens involvement

Weaknesses

  • Accredited private health care centers
  • FOIA register: average time of reply to requests

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 (multivariable) cod. 2.0 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 111.0 high | High
2021 2.0 high | High
High
Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) cod. 2.0 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 1110.0 high | High
2021 2.0 high | High
High
Online services v.a. 71.5 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
2020 10.4 medium | Medium
2021 71.5 high | High
High
Landline high-speed internet access covering % 30.2 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
High
Hospital emigration % 5.7 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
High
Beds in nursing homes (BES) 104.4 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
High
Integrated home care services % 3.5 High score for high values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 4.2 high | High
2021 3.5 high | High
High
Accredited private health care centers v.a. 3.35 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 3.16 low | Low
2021 3.35 low | Low
Low
Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita € p.c. 106.4 High score for low values 8
Year Value Evaluation
2020 10666.14 high | High
2021 106.4 high | High
High
Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties v.a. 3.0 High score for high values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2020 5.0 high | High
2021 3.0 high | High
High
Citizens involvement v.a. 12.0 High score for high values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2020 7.5 high | High
2021 12.0 high | High
High
FOIA register: accepted requests % 94.0 High score for high values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 97.14 high | High
2021 94.0 medium | Medium
Medium
FOIA register: average time of reply to requests gg. 28.5 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 24.05 medium | Medium
2021 28.5 medium | Medium
Medium

5 Public tenders and relations with suppliers

PP - Satisfactory

Rating

58 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
Liguria
84/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
44/100
Worst score
Abruzzo
17/100

Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class

Rating class Number of administrations
ND - Unavailable 0
F - Fallible 1
P - Poor 9
P+ - Weak 3
PP - Satisfactory* 4
PP+ - Good 3
PPP - Very Good 1
PPP+ - Excellent 0

Strengths

  • Timeliness of payments indicator
  • Per capita debt amount vs suppliers
  • Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens
  • Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year

Weaknesses

  • Recurring contractors in direct procurements
  • Direct procurements on global public tenders - number
  • Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount

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 % 47.14 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 49.64 low | Low
2021 47.14 low | Low
Low
Direct procurements on global public tenders - number % 83.59 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 83.69 low | Low
2021 83.59 low | Low
Low
Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount % 40.16 High score for low values 2
Year Value Evaluation
2020 27.93 medium | Medium
2021 40.16 low | Low
Low
Timeliness of payments indicator gg./pers. -17.92 High score for low values 16
Year Value Evaluation
2020 -12.44 high | High
2021 -17.92 high | High
High
Per capita debt amount vs suppliers 0.01 High score for low values 16
Year Value Evaluation
High
Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens v.a. 0.0 High score for low values 10
Year Value Evaluation
High
Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year % 82.64 High score for high values 10
Year Value Evaluation
High

6 Environment

P - Poor

Rating

31 out of 100

Chronological trend

Benchmark score

Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
94/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
55/100
Worst score
Liguria
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* 3
P+ - Weak 5
PP - Satisfactory 4
PP+ - Good 6
PPP - Very Good 1
PPP+ - Excellent 1

Strengths

  • Urban waste disposal into dump

Weaknesses

  • Air quality - PM 2.5
  • Land consumption
  • Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
  • Population exposed to flood risk
  • Renewable energy

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 % 89.4 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Land consumption % 8.9 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
Low
Contaminated sites 1.6 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
Medium
Urban waste disposal into dump % 9.4 High score for low values 14
Year Value Evaluation
2020 10.7 high | High
2021 9.4 high | High
High
Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering % 8.9 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 9.62 low | Low
2021 8.9 low | Low
Low
Population exposed to landslide risk % 2.2 High score for low values 6
Year Value Evaluation
2020 2.2 medium | Medium
2021 2.2 medium | Medium
Medium
Population exposed to flood risk % 63.7 High score for low values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 63.7 low | Low
2021 63.7 low | Low
Low
Renewable energy % 19.7 High score for high values 1
Year Value Evaluation
2020 19.7 low | Low
2021 19.7 low | Low
Low