A procurement-ready case for funding B.E.A.T. — written for state agencies, county governments, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, healthcare systems, courts, and private funders. Every figure herein is a planning estimate until independently audited.
Scope note: This white paper is hosted in iCARE, the central content and governance hub of the MoveQuest Ecosystem™, but describes the B.E.A.T. application. iCARE is the coordination environment; B.E.A.T. is a distinct, deployable application operating within it.
Before any institution signs, one question must be answered credibly:
Why should this organization allocate scarce public, philanthropic, or institutional dollars to B.E.A.T., and what measurable public value will it receive in return?
This paper answers that question with credible data, defined users, measurable outcomes, a defensible differentiator, and a procurement-ready scope. The model is deliberate: survivors never carry the cost; the institutions that benefit from lower system cost and better outcomes do.
No survivor, advocate, or authorized professional pays to be safer. Removing the cost barrier is the design, not an oversight.
Hosting, security, integrations, audits, and support carry real, recurring infrastructure cost that funding must sustain.
Over six months of dedicated founder labor — lived, professional, policy, advocacy, mortgage, and real-estate experience — built B.E.A.T. before any funding. Funding now sustains what that labor began.
The funding argument cannot be only “this app helps victims.” It must be: B.E.A.T. addresses a measurable system failure that currently costs this agency approximately $___ annually, and the proposed contract is expected to reduce, avoid, or better manage those costs.
Survivors re-enter the system repeatedly because no closed loop connects disclosure, assessment, referral, and follow-through.
Risk that escalates from undetected to crisis because risk signals sit in fragments across agencies.
Release and bail decisions made without a consolidated, time-ordered risk and context record.
Victims, advocates, law enforcement, courts, healthcare, and service agencies cannot see the same authorized record.
Emergency housing, healthcare, law-enforcement, court, and social-service spend driven by crisis instead of coordinated prevention.
Professional hours spent collecting, reconciling, and reviewing fragmented information that a coordinated record would eliminate.
“B.E.A.T. addresses a measurable system failure — repeat victimization, escalating lethality risk, incomplete information at bail/pretrial, and fragmented communication — currently costing this agency an estimated $___ per year across emergency housing, healthcare, law-enforcement, court, and social-service expenditures plus professional staff time. The proposed contract of $___ is expected to reduce, avoid, or better manage those costs by ___%, while producing auditable outcome data this agency currently cannot generate.”
A defensible utilization model — not the entire female population of a county — sets the pricing denominator. B.E.A.T. estimates residents eligible for services, annual domestic-violence reports, protective-order applicants, advocacy clients, referrals, and projected system users.
| Eligible population (county) | 12,000 |
| Annual DV reports | 3,000 |
| Protective-order applicants | 900 |
| Advocacy clients | 1,500 |
| × Expected adoption rate | 35% |
| Projected covered users | 4,200 |
| × Per-user license / yr | $120 |
| Population-based contract value | $504,000 |
Replace with jurisdiction-specific data. Do not price on total population unless the agency purchases universal access.
Every proposal separates outputs, outcomes, and long-term impact. This follows the logic-model structure developed for Treva’s Law: inputs support activities, activities produce outputs, and outputs are evaluated against measurable short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes.
The differentiator is not merely the technology. It is the architecture: B.E.A.T. is built from a cross-system, trauma-informed, victim-centered, public-administration perspective rather than from inside one agency’s operational silo — informed by lived, professional, policy, advocacy, mortgage, and real-estate experience conventional developers may not have applied.
Built from the outside of any single agency silo — connecting victims, advocates, law enforcement, courts, healthcare, and service agencies on one governed record.
Consent and minimum-disclosure controls mean a survivor is never re-exposed to danger by the system meant to protect them.
Layered on top of existing case-management, hotline, and assessment tools rather than forcing a rip-and-replace.
Surfaces risk signals and context for an advocate, officer, or clinician to decide — never decides for them.
| Capability | B.E.A.T. | Case Mgmt | Hotline | Danger Assess. | Internal DB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-agency coordinated record | Yes | Partial | No | No | No |
| Victim consent & minimum disclosure | Yes | Partial | Partial | Partial | No |
| Real-time risk escalation routing | Yes | Partial | Partial | No | No |
| Complements existing systems | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Policy-grade aggregate analytics | Yes | Partial | No | No | Partial |
| Audit-ready accountability record | Yes | Partial | No | No | Partial |
The funder must know exactly what is being purchased and why the price is justified. Price is tied to a documented methodology — not simply the available budget of the buying organization.
Base entitlement to host, secure, and maintain the platform for the contract term.
Onboarding, configuration, integration provisioning, and go-live.
Role-based training and certification for advocates, agency personnel, and authorized professionals.
Per-user or population-based licensing tied to the utilization model in Q2.
Connection to courts, law enforcement, healthcare, and service-agency systems.
Ongoing support, security patching, and platform upgrades.
Outcome measurement and audit-ready reporting for funders.
Jurisdiction-specific workflows, forms, and public-education materials.
Subsidized, grant-supported, or consortium pricing. Often underwritten by a funder so cost is not a barrier to participation.
Annual or biennial enterprise agreements scoped to covered population and integrations.
Multi-year statewide enterprise licensing with outcome reporting and statewide analytics.
A proposed $5 million contract is supported by the implementation scope, covered population, system integrations, support obligations, data-security requirements, expected outcomes, and comparative cost savings — not the buyer’s available budget. The same logic scales down to a $50K nonprofit pilot: scope, users, outcomes, and cost savings justify the price.
B.E.A.T. is free to every user. That is the product, not a discount. But storage, hosting, security, integrations, and maintenance cost real, recurring money — and the platform was built through more than six months of unpaid founder labor. The funding model is explicit: the institutions that save cost and gain accountability pay the platform cost, so a survivor never pays to be safer.
B.E.A.T. is free at the point of use to every survivor, advocate, and authorized professional. Sustainability comes from the institutions that benefit from lower cost, better outcomes, and defensible accountability funding the platform. The pathways below convert a credible, outcome-backed proposal into contracted funding.
Procurement pathways, compliance documentation, and impact data.
Initiate a procurement or pilot conversation.
Configure funding, licensing, and data-sharing terms. (Admin)
Explore partnership and sponsorship tracks.