Employee's absence from work as the result of being convicted and sentenced to two years in prison deemed to have impeded the Employer’s ability to fulfill its mission

A New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge [ALJ], Jonathan Fogel, recommended termination of the employment of a sanitation worker [Employee] who was absent without leave [“AWOL”] for approximately ten months. 

While employed by the New York City Department of Sanitation [Agency], Employee was convicted of assault in the second degree and sentenced to two years in prison. His "Employee's absence from work due being convicted and sentenced to two years in prison was deemed to have impeded the Employer’s ability to fulfill its mission as the result of his incarceration.

The Employee attempted to have the Agency's administrative disciplinary charge dismissed for improper service because he was not personally served while in prison. Judge Fogel, however, found that the method of service used by the Agency - mailing the disciplinary charge to the Employee by certified mail via the United States Postal Service addressed to the Employee where Employee was incarcerated - satisfied due process requirements.

There was no dispute that Employee had been absent from work since February 2025 and the ALJ found that Agency had proven the charge. Although Employee had made an effort to retain his job by applying for a leave of absence, Judge Fogel found that the Employee’s continued absence impeded the Agency’s ability to fulfill its mission and recommended the Employee be terminated from his position.

Click HERE to access ALJ Fogel's findings and recommended penalty posted on the Internet.

Employees provisionally appointed to their position pursuant to §65 of New York State's Civil Service Law typically so serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority

Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul the decision of the New York City Department of Correction [DOC] to remove Plaintiff from his Assistant Deputy Warden position to which he had been provisionally appointed and restore him to his former employment status of permanent Captain. 

DOC appealed and the Appellate Division "unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling "on the law," denied Plaintiff's petition and dismissed Plaintiff's action brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78.

Explaining that Supreme Court should have denied Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul DOC's decision to discontinue his employment from his provisional appointment as Assistant Deputy Warden to his former position in which he held permanent appointment as a Captain, the Appellate Division noted that provisional appointments made pursuant to Civil Service Law §65 "carry no expectation nor right of tenure" and provisionally appointed incumbents are not entitled to the protections in the position afforded permanent employees pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. 

Citing Mahinda v Board of Collective Bargaining, 91 AD3d 564, the Appellate Division's decision notes that an employee serving in a position as a provisional employee may "be terminated at any time, without a hearing, for almost any reason, or for no reason at all," so long as the termination does not violate any constitutional or statutory provision and is not arbitrary and capricious or done in bad faith."

In addition, the Appellate Division pointed out that Plaintiff's provisional appointment did not ripen into a permanent one after a one-year probationary period as [such] appointments are mere stop-gaps" and may be succeeded by a permanent appointment only as a result of an examination and eligibility in accordance with New York State's Civil Service Law.

The Appellate Division's decision also pointed out that the fact that Plaintiff was served with disciplinary charges and specifications and notice him of his right to a hearing "does not suggest that his appointment as assistant deputy warden was permanent as Petitioner's underlying permanent appointment to the position of captain entitled him to such charges and a hearing before being removed from his Captain's position or subjected to an other disciplinary penalty such as a loss of vacation days in contrast to Plaintiff's being subject to removal from his provisional appointment as assistant deputy warden at any time without charges preferred, a statement of reasons being given or a hearing being held.

Turning to other arguments advanced by Plaintiff, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff's race, gender, and disability discrimination claims pursuant to State and City Human Rights Laws failed because the record contained no evidence giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination and Plaintiff presented no evidence that DOC's decision to restore him to his permanent position of Captain following Plaintiff's violating a number of DOC's rules and regulations was arbitrary and capricious or done in bad faith.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Selected GovTech Webinars for the week of July 20, 2026

 

Your weekly lineup of learning is here! Can’t watch live? Register anyway to catch the session on-demand whenever it fits your schedule.

TUESDAY, JULY 21 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET - Next-Level Constituent Service: How AI Can Transform Government Contact Centers Join for a discussion of how leading public-sector organizations are putting AI to work in contact centers and other resident-facing operations. Click here to REGISTER WEDNESDAY, JULY 22 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - From Myth to Mission: How Evolving AI Is Transforming Public Sector Outcomes AI is accelerating cyber threats. Learn how Zero Trust and breach containment can limit impact and protect critical systems. Click here to REGISTER

Appellate Division finds that Plaintiffs, alleging violations State and Federal Civil Rights Law, failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action to recover damages

In this action by certain employees to recover damages for allegedly having to work in an hostile work environment and had been subjected to "retaliation" because they had complained, the Professional Staff Congress [Union] and other named respondents [Defendants] appealed a Supreme Court's order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Plaintiffs, employees of New York City Kingsborough Community College,  had commenced the instant action against the Union and certain officers of the Union representing the Plaintiffs seeking to recover damages for alleged religious discrimination. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that their employer, The City University of New York [CUNY], certain individual coworkers, and the Union had engaged in discrimination against them in the workplace because of the Plaintiffs' religion.

Noting a work environment is generally controlled by the employer, the Appellate Division said "labor unions have 'no affirmative duty' to prevent harassment or discrimination within the confines of the workplace" and the union's obligation not to discriminate arises "only when the union is performing an agency function in a representational capacity". The Appellate Division opined that "A union can only be liable pursuant to Title VII for situations in which the union is responsible for discrimination against or creating a hostile environment because of the member's protected characteristic".

Pointing out that Title VII, the NYS Human Rights Law, and the NYC Human Rights Law all require a plaintiff suing a union for discrimination to demonstrate actions or activities which may be properly imputed to a union such as:

(1) "The Union breached its duty of fair representation to plaintiff:

(2) "[The] Union's conduct was motivated by animus toward the plaintiff's protected status"; and

(3) "[A union representative's] role in causing or attempting to cause a hostile work environment".

Further, the Appellate Division explained that a plaintiff must show not only that the union had actual or imputed knowledge of the improper conduct, but also that the union representative's conduct related to union activity and that in acting in such a manner, the representative breached the union's duty of fair representation.

Observing that in the instant matter "there were no allegations in the [Plaintiffs]  complaint that any of the alleged discriminatory acts were undertaken by union representatives acting on behalf of the union or that any of the alleged acts were related to union activity, and no allegations [in the Plaintiffs' complaint] that the union breached its duty of fair representation", the Appellate Division said that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Union's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss allegations of a hostile work environment insofar as asserted against the Union.

As to alleged "retaliation", the Appellate Division noted that "To make out a prima facie case of retaliation by a union, a plaintiff must show that (1) [the plaintiff] was engaged in an activity protected under Title VII and known to the union; (2) [the plaintiff] suffered adverse union action; and (3) there was "a causal connection between the protected activity and the union's actions". In the words of the Appellate Division, "Supreme Court also should have granted that branch of the motion of the union defendants which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging retaliation insofar as asserted against them".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 17, 2026

The Next Benefits Cliff Isn’t Fraud. It’s Overload. Rising federal verification mandates are overwhelming state agency infrastructure. Here’s why legacy systems are failing and how consent-based and automated tools can close the gap. READ NOW

4 Essential Steps for Building Scalable Transportation Infrastructure Explore four steps agencies can take to build a scalable foundation for the future. DOWNLOAD

AI can improve efficiency and fairness But only with strong oversight and accountability. READ NOW 

How Branded Communications Can Improve Government Billing Learn how consistently branded communications can increase constituent trust, improve engagement and support stronger government billing. DOWNLOAD

Better Prepare Your Agency with Data Automation Automate more verifications in advance of new eligibility requirements using data-first solutions. Learn More

Cities invest in architecturally striking museums Critics are asking whether landmark buildings are eclipsing the art, history and public purpose they were meant to serve. Read More

Essential Steps to Building a Strong Grant Compliance Framework From internal controls to reporting and monitoring, this guide explores the key components of a stronger, more sustainable approach to grant compliance. DOWNLOAD

Building the Exact Applications Government Agencies Need Learn how NH Housing replaced manual workflows with 7 custom low-code web portals seamlessly. See How They Did It

Balancing Speed and Flexibility in Public Sector IT Explore the scalable, phased roadmap to transforming government apps without mission disruption. Read the Whitepaper

A toolkit from a national commission Emphasizes the importance of partnerships between public health leaders and elected officials. Read More

New York State's Comptroller posted audits of the State Departments, Agencies and programs on the Internet.

On July 16, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted audits of the State Departments, Agencies and Programs listed below on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted color to access the audit.

Battery Park City Authority – Access Controls and Vulnerability Management Over Critical Systems (2025-S-8) The Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) is a New York State public benefit corporation responsible for the planning, development, and maintenance of the 92-acre Battery Park City neighborhood in lower Manhattan. BPCA generates revenue primarily through ground leases and event permits, managing the latter through its own system, while various other functions utilize third-party vendors. Auditors evaluated BPCA’s information technology governance and security posture and identified areas where BPCA could improve overall governance and certain security controls to minimize the risks associated with unauthorized access to its system and data.

Public Service Commission – Application Review and Site Permitting for Major Renewable Energy Projects (Follow-Up) (2025-F-27) Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), the Public Service Commission (PSC) was required to establish a renewable energy program by the end of June 2021 to meet two requirements: by 2030, a minimum of 70% of statewide electric generation secured by load-serving entities to meet their customers’ demand must be generated by renewable energy systems; and by 2040, the statewide electrical demand system must be zero emissions. In April 2020, the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) was created to undertake the review of proposed major renewable energy facilities to meet the State’s goals. ORES was intended to reduce the time to site major renewable energy projects and bring them online faster. A prior audit, issued in April 2024, found that, while the overall time between application and final siting permit had improved since the creation of ORES, the process took significantly longer than originally envisioned because certain aspects of the process were not considered. PSC officials made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report and implemented the initial report’s one recommendation.

New York State Health Insurance Program – UnitedHealthcare: Accuracy of Payments for Surgical Procedures Involving Multiple Providers (2024-S-15) The Empire Plan is the primary health benefits plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program, and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company of New York (United) administers the medical/surgical benefit of the Empire Plan. Surgical procedures sometimes require multiple providers, such as co-surgeons (two or more physicians who work together as primary surgeons performing distinct parts of a surgical procedure) or surgical assistants (physicians or other qualified health care professionals who assist physicians performing a surgical procedure). United’s reimbursement policies require co-surgeons and surgical assistants to report their roles during a surgical procedure to ensure claims are paid appropriately. For the period from January 2019 to June 2024, auditors identified nearly $12.5 million in potential overpayments for surgical procedures involving co-surgeons or surgical assistants.

Office of Children and Family Services – Child Care Stabilization Grants (Follow-Up) (2026-F-4) The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) administers several child care grant programs. Between May and June 2021, OCFS received $1.8 billion from the American Rescue Plan Act, plus $469 million from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. OCFS used the money to fund several COVID-19 response programs, awarding $1.173 billion in two rounds for grants to stabilize the child care sector and the child care workforce. A prior audit, issued in November 2024, found weaknesses in OCFS’ monitoring of grantee expenses claimed under the program to provide assurance that funds were used for allowable expenses. OCFS officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s three audit recommendations, one was implemented, and two were partially implemented.

New York State Health Insurance Program – Anthem Blue Cross: Coordination of Benefits With Medicare (Follow-Up) (2025-F-25) The Empire Plan is the primary health benefits plan for the New York State Health Insurance Program, and Anthem Blue Cross administers the Hospital Program of the Empire Plan. Many enrollees and their dependents have additional insurance coverage, such as Medicare, and Medicare typically pays claims as primary (Empire Plan typically pays secondary) for enrollees who are age 65 and older and retired. A prior audit, issued in August 2024, found that Anthem improperly paid $5,259,416 because benefits were not properly coordinated. Anthem has made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, one was implemented, and three were partially implemented.

State Education Department (Preschool Special Education Audit Initiative) – Shield of David: Compliance With the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2020-S-24) Shield of David (Shield), d.b.a. The Shield Institute, is a New York City-based organization authorized by the State Education Department (SED) to provide full-day Special Class and full-day Special Class in an Integrated Setting services to children with disabilities who are between the ages of 3 and 5 years (referred to as SED preschool cost-based programs). For the audit scope, Shield reported approximately $10.3 million in reimbursable costs for the SED preschool cost-based programs. Auditors identified $221,752 in reported costs that did not comply with requirements.

Department of Environmental Conservation – Monitoring of Air Quality (Facility Permits and Registrations) (Follow-Up) (2025-F-13) The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issues air pollution control permits and registrations in accordance with its federally approved Air Pollution Control Permitting Program (Program), and its Environmental Justice Permitting Policy (Policy) (designed to address the fair treatment of all people regardless of race, income, national origin, or color, with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies) outlines DEC’s responsibilities for incorporating environmental justice into its review of air permit applications. A prior audit, issued in September 2023, found weaknesses in several aspects of DEC’s oversight of the Program—namely, implementation of the Policy and monitoring of permitted and registered facilities—that undermine its ability to ensure compliance with the Program and protect the State’s air from harmful pollutants. DEC officials made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, two were implemented, and two were partially implemented.

###

New York State Comptroller announces the New York State Tax Cap will remain at 2% for 2027

On July 15, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announce New York State's 2027 property tax level will capped at 2% for local governments that operate on a calendar-based fiscal year according to data released today by State Comptroller DiNapoli. This figure affects tax cap calculations for all counties, towns and fire districts, as well as 44 cities and 13 villages.

"For the sixth consecutive year, the allowable tax levy growth will be limited to 2%," DiNapoli said. “Local governments are tasked with the difficult challenge of delivering essential services efficiently while managing higher costs of goods and services, as well as the persistent threat of destabilizing federal actions. My office offers technical assistance for those that need it and provides transparency to the public so they understand the fiscal pressures facing local governments.”

In accordance with state law, DiNapoli’s office calculated the 2027 inflation factor at 3.13% for those local governments with a calendar fiscal year, above the 2% allowable levy increase.

The tax cap, which first applied to local governments (excluding New York City) and school districts in 2012, limits annual tax levy increases to the lesser of the inflation factor or 2% with certain exceptions. The law, however, includes a provision that allows municipalities to override the cap.

Chart
Allowable Tax Levy Growth Factors for Local Governments

Related Work
Technical Assistance/Local Training Page

Fiscal Stress Monitoring System

Challenging New York City’s congestion-pricing program for vehicles entering its business district in Midtown and Lower Manhattan

Two New York counties—Rockland and Orange [Plaintiffs]—sued the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, [Defendants] alleging that New York City’s congestion-pricing program imposed an unauthorized tax, unconstitutionally restricted the right to travel, and violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Excessive Fines Clauses of New York State's and the U.S. Constitution. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarized its decision in the instant appeal challenging the District Court's ruling in County of Rockland v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, as follows: 

New York City’s congestion-pricing program charges a toll for vehicles entering the Central Business District in Midtown and Lower Manhattan. Assuming without deciding that the toll is not a tax under New York law, the Second Circuit concluded that the District Court correctly dismissed causes of action, noting that Orange County failed to allege that congestion pricing violates the right to travel.

In the words of the Circuit Court, "The program does not create invidious distinctions among drivers or impose more than a minor restriction on the right to travel". 

Accordingly, the Circuit Court, observing that it had reviewed the unresolved issues the District Court's ruling "only for reasonableness", opined that Orange County failed to allege that the challenged toll is an unreasonable user fee, noted that:

1. Plaintiffs failed to state Due Process or Equal Protection claims because the congestion-pricing program is rationally related to New York’s legitimate interests in raising funds for mass transit and reducing vehicular congestion; and

2. "Rockland County does not plausibly allege that the toll is an unconstitutionally excessive fine".

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed "the judgments of the district court".

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's ruling posted on the Internet. 

Responding to a New York State Freedom of Information Law request

The Town received Plaintiff's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request and on the same day responded to the request by advising Plaintiff' that all of the requested records could be found in "permit files" on the Town's website. The Town then provided Plaintiff' with the appropriate the website's address, told Plaintiff how the website could be accessed via the Internet, and provided Plaintiff with information on how to access permit files via the Town's "public kiosk." The Town's letter to Plaintiff also indicated that "[Plaintiff's] FOIL [request] is now completed." 

Petitioner administratively appealed the Town's determination, but the Town did not respond and Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78.  

Supreme Court dismissed [1] Plaintiff's petition; [2] Plaintiff's application for an award of attorney's fees and litigation costs; and [3] Plaintiff's request for a judgment declaring that the Town acted unlawfully in withholding records from Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

Observing that to promote open government and public accountability New York State'  FOIL "imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public", the Appellate Division explained that "[w]hen faced with a FOIL request, an agency must either disclose the record sought, deny the request and claim a specific exemption to disclosure, or certify that it does not possess the requested document and that it could not be located after a diligent search".

Here, said the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court properly granted the Town's motion to dismiss that branch of Plaintiff's complaint which sought to compel the production of the "requested records" as the Town's FOIL response was not a denial but, in fact,  informed the Plaintiff how to locate the requested records either via the Town's website or in person.

The Appellate Division's decision also noted that "Although the Town referred the [Plaintiff] to a publicly available website, the [Plaintiff] did not request the records in any specific format" and  the Town was not required to certify that any requested records could not be found after diligent search as such a certification requirement is only triggered "when, in lieu of granting a FOIL request, the agency finds that it either does not possess the item requested or is unable to locate it after a diligent search".

Here the records requested were always available to the Plaintiff, who was so advised  prior to the commencement of the Plaintiff's instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding and thus the litigation "did not trigger the production of such records". 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary fees pursuant to Public Officers Law §89(4)(c)(i) "because even though Plaintiff administratively appealed the Town's FOIL determination and the Town did not provide a response, there was nothing to administratively appeal, as the Town did not deny the Plaintiff's FOIL request".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Comptroller releases taxpayer migration dashboard

On June 10, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli unveiled a new taxpayer migration dashboard today where users can track the number of personal income tax (PIT) filers moving in and out of New York.

DiNapoli has been monitoring taxpayer trends, most recently issuing a report that examined pre-pandemic trends in PIT tax filings and a follow-up report that analyzed changes in the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021. Using data from the Department of Taxation and Finance, this dashboard contains the latest numbers on part-year resident tax filers and will be updated annually to allow the public the ability to analyze trends on taxpayers moving into and out of the state each year.

Part-year resident tax filers made up 2% of New York state filers in 2024. These filers are those whose tax returns indicated they moved into or out of the state during the tax year. Though a small share of all taxpayers, the movement of these part-year residents can affect collections over time—particularly since New York has experienced a net out-migration of resident filers since 2015. However, the net out-migration of tax filers is not equal to state population gained or lost.

“Personal income taxes are New York’s largest tax revenue source, accounting for more than one out of two tax dollars collected by the state,” DiNapoli said. “When personal income taxes drive so much of the state’s revenue, even small shifts in the number of tax filers can have an impact over time. The pandemic caused a large movement of taxpayers out of New York in 2020, but the dashboard shows this was an aberration. Although out-migration has continued, it slowed considerably and was well below pre-pandemic levels in 2024. I remain very concerned about the net loss of married, middle-class filers, and urge policymakers to continue their efforts to improve affordability for New York’s families.”

The interactive chart provides data for tax filers moving into and out of New York in a given year based on part-year resident filers, and allows for analysis based on filing status or income. For example, the dashboard indicates:

• In 2024 there were 256,164 part-year filers; of these filers, 121,251 moved into New York, while 134,913 left the state, a net out-migration of 13,662 taxpayers—a loss of approximately 1 in 1,000 resident taxpayers.
• The greatest net loss of taxpayers was among married filers with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000 – a net loss of 8,200, or more than half of the total net out-migration, in 2024.
• Net out-migration rates increase at higher income levels; in 2024, net out-migration averaged 1 in every 100 resident filers with incomes over $500,000. 
• One positive post-pandemic trend is that there has been a net in-migration of single filers each year since 2022.

Dashboard

Taxpayer Migration in New York State

Related Reports

Moving In or Out? New York State Personal Income Taxpayer Migration Trends

Taxpayer Movement During the Pandemic: Comparing 2020 and 2021 to Pre-Pandemic Baseline

###

Workers' Comp 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers continues

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board continues its free webinar series for employees next week, and there is still time to register!

On the dates listed below, the Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will discuss the basics of the workers’ compensation system, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. Presentations will also cover:

• Employees’ benefits under workers’ compensation
• How to file a claim
• How to get help with your claim if needed
• Tips and best practices for injured workers

The sessions are free and there will be time at the end for questions and will be held on:

  Tuesday, July 14, 2026  11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.    

Tuesday, August 4, 2026  11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Wednesday, September 2, 2026  11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Register here

More information

Visit the Advocate for Injured Workers section of the Board’s website for additional resources.

You can also call the Advocate for Injured Workers at (877) 632-4996 or email advinjwkr@wcb.ny.gov.

Having trouble?

If you are having trouble registering for or attending any of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

 

Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending July 10, 2026

How Branded Communications Can Improve Government Billing Learn how consistently branded communications can increase constituent trust, improve engagement and support stronger government billing. DOWNLOAD

Fewer Births Mean Fewer Students. Now is the time for policymakers to take steps to mitigate the impact and better support schools and students. Read More

Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud This thought leadership paper covers common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. Read more to learn how your agency can enhance its approach to identity verification. DOWNLOAD 

Essential Steps to Building a Strong Grant Compliance Framework From internal controls to reporting and monitoring, this guide explores the key components of a stronger, more sustainable approach to grant compliance. DOWNLOAD

Using Existing Platforms to Meet New Political Priorities With 39 gubernatorial elections set for fall 2026, navigating change is a crucial skill for state CIOs. This paper explores how CIOs can deliver fast and visible wins that align with policy priorities of incoming administrations. DOWNLOAD

Essential Steps to Building a Strong Grant Compliance Framework From internal controls to reporting and monitoring, this guide explores the key components of a stronger, more sustainable approach to grant compliance. DOWNLOAD

The AI-Enhanced Meeting: Improving Access and Driving Better Outcomes   Discover how AI is transforming the way public sector teams meet, collaborate and deliver results. In this paper, you’ll learn how AI-powered tools are helping agencies overcome common challenges in hybrid environments. DOWNLOAD

Dangerous Heat Is Coming To More Parts Of The Country Than Ever. The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a library of remediation strategies and policies. Read More

Deferred Maintenance and Its Impact on Communities This eBook examines the problem of deferred maintenance for America's infrastructure, considers ways to identify deferred maintenance issues early and explores options for addressing them quickly. DOWNLOAD

Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud Uncover common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. DOWNLOAD

Redefining Government Efficiency State and local efficiency initiatives are going beyond cost control. While savings clearly matter, a growing number of these efforts also seek to connect spending to outcomes, increase institutional capacity, and improve the responsiveness and usability of resident services. This report examines how the concept of government efficiency is evolving and offers examples of what these trends look like in practice. DOWNLOAD

Making Sense of AI in Public Services A practical guide for public sector leaders choosing between generative AI tools, chatbots, and agentic AI. DOWNLOAD