intake:family-recognition:capital-fit | capital-fit | P2 | Establish funding and implementation fit for Family Recognition. | Capital pathways: Health and youth services, housing, legal aid, aging and long-term care, anti-violence programs, family support and inclusive institutions. Record instrument, payer, intermediary, recipient, restriction, duration, risk allocation, beneficiary reach and observed outcome separately. | Query the funding and award sources in the issue packet; distinguish appropriations, obligations, outlays, grants, contracts, loans, guarantees, tax expenditures and private capital. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:definition-authority | definition-authority | P1 | Add authoritative definitions and scope boundaries for Family Recognition. | research scope: Assess family, employment, housing, health, safety, youth, aging, faith and public participation across distinct LGBTQ+ populations without treating identity groups as interchangeable. For Family Recognition, treat the unit of analysis as a source-defined law, rule, institution, service, market, exposure, process or observed outcome. Do not infer a claim from category membership, identity, geography or association alone. Starting authorities: Civil Rights Protections in Health and Human Services, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), SAM.gov Assistance Listings. | Extract the operative definition, jurisdiction, exclusions, legal/status hierarchy and date from the cited sources; store exact locators. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:implementation | implementation | P2 | Document supported implementation pathways for Family Recognition. | Implementation approach: Separate population, age, setting, legal claim, service and outcome; pair safety and access data with privacy and small-sample safeguards. Operationally, create an issue-specific logic chain from authority and need through implementer, action, output, outcome, remedy and feedback. | Populate responsible authority, implementer, delivery channel, eligibility, process step, service standard, output, outcome, cost and failure mode. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:measures-trends | measures-trends | P1 | Assign dated measures or a comparable time series for Family Recognition. | Measurement framework: population scale and exposure; access, participation or utilization; institutional capacity and resources; process, complaint or enforcement outcome; substantive outcome or wellbeing; gap by subgroup, geography and time. Denominator: Source-defined eligible, affected, exposed or served population; raw counts must be paired with denominators. Cadence: At least three comparable periods where available, with methodology changes flagged. | Extract a baseline, latest value and comparable time series for each feasible indicator; retain numerator, denominator, geography, subgroup, methodology and vintage. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:relationships | relationships | P2 | Add explicit supported relationship records for Family Recognition where evidence warrants them. | Candidate research relationships: LGBTQ+ Safety & Targeted Harm (0.22; shared institutional/source pathway); LGBTQ+ Aging & Long-Term Care (0.18; shared institutional/source pathway); LGBTQ+ Life, Faith & Pluralism (0.18; shared institutional/source pathway). These are routing hypotheses based on title/source proximity, not research intersectionality or causal findings. | For each candidate pair, test a named shared mechanism, direction, comparator, counterfactual, distinctiveness and independent source support. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:risks-safeguards | risks-safeguards | P2 | Document issue-specific risks, failure conditions, and safeguards for Family Recognition. | Material risks: Population conflation, outing, small-sample disclosure, denial of care or service, targeted violence, youth politicization and faith/community conflict. Required safeguards: Consent and privacy, subgroup data, nondiscrimination, evidence-based care, family and youth protections, pluralistic accommodation and accessible remedy. | Create one risk-control record per material risk with trigger, affected population, preventive control, detective control, remedy, owner and monitoring indicator. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:rulings-confirmatory | rulings-confirmatory | P1 | Acquire confirmatory rulings for Family Recognition. | Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and to state recognition of lawful marriages. Obergefell v. Hodges supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Family Recognition. Fit tier: Direct. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here. | Verify official text, current precedential status, later treatment, pinpoint holding, jurisdiction and exact issue-claim linkage; add lower-court or agency authorities where needed. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:rulings-disconfirmatory | rulings-disconfirmatory | P1 | Acquire disconfirmatory, limiting, adverse, or narrowing rulings for Family Recognition. | Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2021). Philadelphia violated free exercise where its foster-care contract rule permitted individualized exemptions but denied one to a religious agency. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia rejects, narrows, limits, or supplies adverse authority relevant to Family Recognition. Fit tier: Strong analogue. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here. | Verify official text, current precedential status, later treatment, pinpoint holding, jurisdiction and exact issue-claim linkage; add lower-court or agency authorities where needed. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:sources-policy-rulings | sources-policy-rulings | P1 | Acquire sources, datasets, policy records, and rulings for Family Recognition. | A 12-source issue packet has been assembled from the Source Registry. Confirmatory candidate: Obergefell v. Hodges (Direct); disconfirmatory/limiting candidate: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (Strong analogue). Policy, data, implementation and adjudicatory sources remain separately typed. | Extract exact locators and claim linkages; perform legal currentness review; add jurisdiction-specific lower-court and agency material where the registry records a gap or analogue. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:stakeholder-authority | stakeholder-authority | P2 | Identify documented affected groups, institutional actors, and decision authority for Family Recognition. | Stakeholder set: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other sexual- and gender-minority people across age, race, disability, faith and geography; families, employers, schools, providers, housing and public agencies. Separate affected people, rights holders, duty bearers, funders, implementers, data holders, adjudicators, advocates and potential opposing interests. | Validate each stakeholder class from a cited source; record authority, interest, exposure, decision rights, accountability and conflict-of-interest. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:systems-differences | systems-differences | P2 | Source the systems and distributional differences material to Family Recognition. | Systems map: Civil-rights and family law; health systems; schools; employment and housing; public accommodations; military and aging services; religion and community safety. Compare legal regime, eligibility, administrative process, funding, delivery channel, data definition, geography and population before making cross-system claims. | Build a comparison matrix across jurisdictions and subgroups; record which dimensions are comparable, non-comparable or missing. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|
intake:family-recognition:values-responsibilities | values-responsibilities | P2 | Document issue-specific values and institutional responsibilities for Family Recognition. | Values and responsibilities: Equal dignity, safety, family, health, work, housing, belonging, conscience and participation. Translate these into explicit duties for government, institutions, funders, implementers, data stewards and affected-community governance. | Link each asserted value to a legal, policy or ethical authority and to a measurable institutional responsibility, safeguard and remedy. | Published · owner-authorized |
|---|