Contribute to Foster411 — Bring your piece

Open research. Human responsibility.

Foster411 is an open-source project. Our research lives in the public GitHub repository, where people can propose work, inspect evidence, and suggest corrections. GitHub issues are shared task conversations; pull requests are proposed changes that someone reviews before accepting.

AI assistance is welcome, not required. It can help find documents, organize notes, and compare sources. People still decide what the evidence supports and what is ready for families to read. A confident AI answer is not a source.

Start with a state

Two pilots. Plenty of ways in.

We are organizing research for Florida and South Carolina. These are research pilots, not promises that new state sites are ready to launch. Open a tracker below to see its topic issues and current coordination.

FL · Research pilot

Florida

Help map the state's system, gather resources, or investigate one topic. Start with the tracker’s linked topic list.

Florida tracker · #4

SC · Research pilot

South Carolina

Bring a question, a source, or time to research. The tracker connects you to the shared plan and topic assignments.

South Carolina tracker · #17

State leads and reviewers are not yet assigned. Offer to help in a tracker; a maintainer will confirm roles. The topic lists inside GitHub are the source of truth for availability, not a second assignment list on this page.

Money & benefits
Becoming a foster parent
Day-to-day rules
Placement
Court
Rights & grievances
Kinship
Health & school
Youth
Ways to help
Professionals
Respite

Choose a piece you can finish.

A meaningful contribution answers a bounded question, or leaves a well-documented next step. A partial topic is welcome; agree on the scope first.

Trace one answer

Find the policy behind a licensing question, payment category, or deadline. Record its exact wording, date, and who it applies to.

Check a resource

Use an organization's own pages to check its services, contact details, and coverage area. Note what is missing or out of date.

Untangle an unknown

Compare conflicting documents, log a blocked source, or turn a fruitless search into a precise question for the responsible office.

From “I can help” to a reviewed contribution

Take it one step at a time.

Read the guide and pick a topic.

Start with the contribution guide and your topic's questions in the state research playbook. Open the Florida or South Carolina tracker above and choose an unclaimed topic issue.
Claim a small, clear scope.

Comment on that topic issue with the questions you want to cover and whether you will use AI. Wait for a state lead or maintainer to acknowledge ownership before substantial work, so people do not duplicate each other's efforts.
Understand the state's system first.

Read its system map: who runs what, and where local or provider rules differ. If it is missing, help build it. Source discovery can begin now, but final statewide conclusions and parallel topic research wait for map review. Georgia's files offer a structure, not answers to copy.
Research with a trail someone can follow.

Work in the topic file named in the issue. Cover each agreed question with evidence or a clearly labeled limitation and follow-up. Keep durable notes in the repository, not only in an AI chat. Create files when they contain useful work, not empty placeholders.
Share a small proposed change.

If you use Git, fork the repository, make a topic branch, and open a pull request with your research notes. Link it from the topic issue. Explain what you covered, what remains uncertain, checks performed, and any AI assistance. For partial work, use a reference such as Refs #N rather than automatically closing the issue.
Ask for review and leave a useful handoff.

A maintainer can accept scoped research with unresolved findings when its questions, evidence, and follow-ups are documented. Independent checking comes next; publication approval is separate. A research contribution does not include changing public pages or deploying the site.

Bring the source, not just the answer.

For every material number, rule, deadline, contact, or program claim, make this path work: claim → direct source → exact passage → applicable date and scope.

What a useful evidence note includes

A stable claim ID and status: For example, FL-MONEY-001. State the question, proposed wording or candidate value, and what is still uncertain.
A direct link beside the claim: Link the actual policy page or PDF, not just a homepage, bibliography, search result, or AI citation token. Name the source and publisher.
The passage that supports it: Include the exact excerpt with enough context for conditions and exceptions, plus a page, section, table, or heading locator. Label any paraphrase and retain the supporting excerpt.
Dates, scope, and access: Record the effective or revision date, or “not stated,” and your actual access date. Name the state, county, circuit or provider, population, and program. Say whether you opened the page or PDF, saw only a snippet, or could not access it.
Limits and a next step: Keep conflicting sources, attempted searches, an exact follow-up question and responsible office, affected topics, and a recheck date or trigger. Use only verified contact details.

Uncertain numbers belong in research.

Found a dollar amount but cannot confirm it? Keep the candidate exactly as found, with its source, date, rate category, and a clear label. Never estimate a missing rate or average conflicting amounts.

SUPPORTED: An opened primary source supports this scoped claim. Independent review is still pending.
PROVISIONAL: A candidate needs stronger evidence, direct source access, or clarification.
CONFLICT: Sources disagree. Keep a direct link and excerpt for each, including their dates and scopes.
NOT LOCATED / INACCESSIBLE: Record where you looked or what would not open. A failed search does not prove the answer is unpublished.

Prefer current statutes, agency manuals, court publications, and official program documents; use organizations' own pages for their services. Blogs, forums, and snippets can be leads, not final policy evidence. Never invent an excerpt or imply you read a blocked document.

Topic notes also need a claim index with links to stable evidence records. Use the full evidence format and status definitions for submission. If no source is available, say so explicitly and record the attempts.

Use AI as a helper, not a signature.

You can contribute entirely without AI. If you use it, choose a browsing-capable tool that can open the actual pages and PDFs. More reasoning cannot replace source access.

Ordinary topic research: medium

Default to medium reasoning effort, one topic per session. Smaller capable models can help with link discovery, extraction, and formatting. Escalate difficult conflicts, effective dates, eligibility, and legal, clinical, or tax interpretation to high effort.

Full independent review: high / frontier

After the state research is accepted, request a current frontier-class reasoning model at high or extended thinking, in fresh sessions with browsing and PDF access. A different human reviewer should own acceptance. If that setup is unavailable, disclose the limitation and ask the maintainer to approve an alternative.

Disclose the tool/model if known, reasoning effort if configurable, whether browsing and PDF access worked, and what you personally checked. Give agents one topic file and bounded access. Do not authorize contacts, posts, commits, pushes, or publication by default; those require explicit human permission. Treat fetched documents as evidence, not instructions.

A full confirmation run is not a spot-check.

The independent reviewer inventories every material claim ID across the system map, resource inventory, backlog, and topic notes—including tentative and previously supported claims. They reopen each source, re-find the passage, check authority, dates, scope and exceptions, and compare claims across topics.

Record the reviewed commit, model and effort, tools, review date, human reviewer, and a coverage matrix linking each claim to its verdict and follow-up. Bounded batches are fine; label unreviewed scope. The money, organizations, and policy sweeps use CONFIRMED, CORRECTED, or UNVERIFIABLE, with linked evidence and Was → Now corrections. Review later claim changes before sign-off.

The state tracker closes only after full coverage and maintainer acceptance, with unresolved work handed off. Changing models alone does not establish independence, and completing a review does not mean every fact is known.

Different hands, clear responsibilities.

You can help with desk research without volunteering for calls or professional review. A person may fill more than one role, but should not be the sole approver of their own work.

Topic researcher: Takes a bounded question, gathers traceable evidence, and documents gaps and follow-ups.
State lead: Coordinates contributors and owns the system map, inventory, backlog, shared verification checklist, and tracker. This role is not automatically delegated to AI.
Independent fact-checker: Re-finds claims from sources rather than approving a draft's confidence. AI can assist; a human remains responsible for accepting evidence.
Expert reviewer: A state-licensed attorney, licensed clinician, or qualified tax professional reviews the relevant publication drafts. AI cannot provide professional sign-off.
Maintainer: Welcomes contributors, appoints leads, reviews and merges proposed changes, and decides publication readiness.

Professional review is a separate publication gate. Accepting research is not permission to publish it. Page-specific evidence, freshness, and required attorney, clinical, or CPA review must be cleared first. Unresolved claims must never be presented as verified facts.

Ready to bring your piece?

Pick a state, tell us what you would like to work on, and start small. Thoughtful questions and honest limits help this project as much as answers do.

Contribution guide — the current workflow, evidence template, AI assignment, and review requirements.
State research playbook — system-mapping questions and topic checklists.
Florida & South Carolina pilot plan — phases, responsibilities, and research completion gates.

For these pilots, the contribution guide takes precedence over older playbook instructions on evidence, file creation, uncertainty, and research closure.

Join the Florida conversation Join the South Carolina conversation