211

health and human-services referral hotline and website network

211

Industry Aid

A national referral network connecting people to local help for food, housing, utilities, mental health, disaster recovery, and other needs. 211 scores well because it is an accessible front door to assistance, though local availability, call-center quality, and fragmented service supply limit the ceiling.

Why this matters: When someone does not know which agency to call, a simple three-digit referral path can be decisive.

Letter grade A Good High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1

Final Score 57* A - Good

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material52
Bonus+5
Cap66No structure cap
After Cap57
Penalties0
!Not Verified
Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

A - Good

The score turns mainly on Extraction; no penalty currently dominates the evaluation.

Strengths

  • Extraction8/10
  • Solidarity with the Unemployed7/7
  • Ownership6/10

Penalties

  • No penalties applied in this version.

Evidence state

  • ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
  • ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
  • Linked claims12
  • Direct axis claims12
  • Coverage12/12

Scoring Axes

Axis Score Why this score
Ownership
?
Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.
6 / 10

211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Governance
?
Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.
6 / 10

211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Extraction
?
Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.
8 / 10

211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Labor Sovereignty
?
Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.
4 / 7

211's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed
?
Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.
7 / 7

211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity
?
Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.
6 / 7

211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Market Conduct
?
Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.
5 / 5

211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Product Integrity
?
Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.
5 / 5

211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • context 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]
Scale Integrity
?
Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.
5 / 5

211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • context 211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category. [1]
  • context 211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users. [2]
  • context 211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform. [3]
  • context 211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization. [4]
  • context 211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation. [5]
  • context 211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use. [6]
  • context 211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives. [7]
  • context 211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability. [8]
  • 211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase. [9]

Penalties

No penalties applied in this version.

Bonus Credits

Bonus Credit Why this credit
Openness to Dissent
?
Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.
1 / 3

211's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • 211's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability. [10]
Good Deal
?
Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.
3 / 3

211's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • 211's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability. [11]
Cost Transparency
?
Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.
1 / 3

211's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Under-known public-benefit service pass calibrated across benefits navigation, accessibility, caregiving, digital inclusion, reuse, repair, childcare, mobility, and open-data services.

Linked evidence
  • 211's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability. [12]

Confidence Basis

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 80/100

12 verified linked claims 12 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 12/12 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 17/20

12 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

12 direct claims across 12 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

12/12 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending
VerificationUnverified
ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.
Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.
1211's public materials identify its ownership form, nonprofit status, platform status, public-benefit structure, or private company status in the aid category.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

  • 211General web source · 58%
2211's public materials indicate whether binding control sits with a nonprofit board, company managers, volunteers, members, public-service partners, or users.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

  • 211General web source · 58%
3211's public model determines whether the service primarily reduces user costs and friction or channels a public need through a proprietary platform.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

  • 211General web source · 58%
4211's public materials do not show ordinary workers or volunteers holding full binding democratic control over the organization.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

  • 211General web source · 58%
5211 serves a public need linked to disability, poverty, medical bills, caregiving, childcare, repair, mobility, information access, or benefit navigation.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

6211's service can absorb practical risk for users by reducing costs, restoring access, coordinating help, preventing loss, or making essential information easier to use.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

7211 operates where ordinary users often face fragmented services, inaccessible formats, high search costs, gatekeeping, or limited practical alternatives.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

8211's core offering has direct practical utility for users, with integrity depending on accessibility, privacy, quality, cost, availability, and accountability.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

  • 211General web source · 58%
9211's scale or replicable model makes its service consequential beyond a single local provider or one-time product purchase.

Scale Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

10211's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

11211's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

12211's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its accessibility model, pricing, public-benefit purpose, user vulnerability, data handling, environmental effects, or institutional accountability.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

Alternatives

Competitors

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for 211 Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log