evidoria

What works in New York City

All catalogues · United States of America profile

5
evaluated practices
50/100
average quality score
20%
strong evidence, of 5 assessed
{# KAN-370: every section closes with a one-line "what is this number" note + Know more. The note only names metrics actually shown — the strong-evidence tile hides when nothing is assessed (KAN-364 honesty rule), so its mention hides with it. #}

Quality scores are 0–100 rubric scores; “strong evidence” reflects study design; adoptions count documented replications elsewhere. Know more

Evidence snapshot for New York City

New York City has implemented multiple algorithmic transparency and accountability measures. Local Law 35 requires annual public reporting of municipal algorithmic tools, with the 2023 inventory identifying 46 tools across 14 agencies, up from 8 a decade earlier, though about 35% of these process personally identifying information. Local Law 144 mandates independent bias audits of AI hiring tools, but enforcement has been ineffective—a 2024 study found only 4.6% of 391 employers posted required audit reports, and a 2025 state audit found the enforcement agency identified just 1 non-compliance case while the Comptroller independently found 17 in the same 32 companies reviewed. These practices demonstrate NYC's legislative intent to create algorithmic accountability, but reveal significant gaps between policy design and actual compliance monitoring.

Drawn from: Girls Who Code — Closing the Computer Science Gender Gap Through Summer Programmes · New York City's Local Law 144 — Mandatory Bias-Audit Disclosure for Automated Hiring Tools, and Its Enforcement Gap · Local Law 35 — New York City's Annual Public Inventory of Municipal Algorithmic Tools · New York City Local Law 144 — AI Hiring Bias Audit Mandate · AI-Powered Oral Exams — NYU Stern's Cheat-Resistant Alternative to Written Assessment

Generated from this place's cited practices only. Always check the linked sources.

Strengths & weaknesses vs peers

{# KAN-369 chips show whole points; the explanation lives in the section's bottom note (KAN-370) so each concept is explained exactly once. #}

Strengths

Transparency, fairness & accountability +30 pts 83 here · 54 average

Sustainability +20 pts 100 here · 80 average

Impact on gender equality +17 pts 100 here · 83 average

Weaknesses

Transferability / replicability -9 pts 50 here · 59 average

Evidence of impact / measured public value -10 pts 50 here · 60 average

Governance, capability & sustainability -16 pts 50 here · 66 average

Transparency, ethics & data protection -17 pts 33 here · 50 average

Scalability beyond pilot -22 pts 44 here · 66 average

Curator validation -25 pts 50 here · 75 average

Effectiveness -31 pts 50 here · 81 average

Evaluated outcomes -34 pts 50 here · 84 average

Gender-mainstreaming embedding -40 pts 50 here · 90 average

Achievement / evidence -43 pts 50 here · 93 average

Efficiency -52 pts 0 here · 52 average

Equity & inclusion -54 pts 0 here · 54 average

{# Score profile vs peers (KAN-364, UX2.3): every dimension as place-vs-corpus bars — the full picture behind the strengths/weaknesses shortlists above. #}

Score profile vs peers

Transparency, fairness & accountability
83 · 54
Sustainability
100 · 80
Impact on gender equality
100 · 83
Evidence of learning impact
33 · 30
Teacher capability & pedagogy
33 · 39
Transferability / replicability
50 · 59
Evidence of impact / measured public value
50 · 60
Governance, capability & sustainability
50 · 66
Transparency, ethics & data protection
33 · 50
Scalability beyond pilot
44 · 66
Curator validation
50 · 75
Effectiveness
50 · 81
Evaluated outcomes
50 · 84
Gender-mainstreaming embedding
50 · 90
Achievement / evidence
50 · 93
Efficiency
0 · 52
Equity & inclusion
0 · 54

Coloured bar: New York City. Grey bar: peer average across the corpus. Both on a common 0–100 scale.

Points compare this place's average on each dimension with the average across all evaluated places, on a common 0–100 scale. Know more

Top good practices here

Girls Who Code — Closing the Computer Science Gender Gap Through Summer Programmes · 74

New York City's Local Law 144 — Mandatory Bias-Audit Disclosure for Automated Hiring Tools, and Its Enforcement Gap · 60

Local Law 35 — New York City's Annual Public Inventory of Municipal Algorithmic Tools · 53

New York City Local Law 144 — AI Hiring Bias Audit Mandate · 37

AI-Powered Oral Exams — NYU Stern's Cheat-Resistant Alternative to Written Assessment · 27

Each number is the practice's overall 0–100 quality score against its catalogue's rubric. Know more

Recommended to adopt or replicate

Transferable practices from elsewhere that address this place's gaps.

{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

Ciudad Mujer — El Salvador's Integrated Women's Services Programme · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions
{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

SASA! Community Mobilisation Programme against Intimate Partner Violence — Uganda · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions
{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

work2future · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions
{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

Smart City Wien Framework Strategy · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions
{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

Forum Virium Helsinki — agile piloting in urban living labs · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions
{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

Smart Open Lisboa · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions
{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

Copenhagen Business Hub (Erhvervshus Hovedstaden) · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions
{# KAN-369: display the true 0–100 fit (rec.score) — gap_score is ordering-only and exceeds 100 by construction; the weak-gap boost surfaces as a reason line instead. #}

Rwanda's Land Tenure Regularization Programme — Titling Land in Women's Names · fit 90/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Fit estimates how well a practice matches this place, 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent); the list is ordered to favour practices that address this place's gaps. Know more