Nonprofit security grant use expansion

Full Title:
Safe Spaces for All Act

Summary#

This bill changes what the Department of Homeland Security’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) may pay for. It explicitly allows grant money to be used to hire onsite security staff and off‑duty police officers. It also allows grant funds to pay people who prepare and manage grant applications, but limits those application/administration costs to 5% of each grant.

  • Main change: Adds hiring of onsite security personnel and off‑duty police officers as allowable uses of NSGP funds.
  • Main change: Lets grantees use funds for both applying for and administering the grant, with application/administration costs capped at 5% of the grant amount.
  • Main change: Reorders an existing list of allowable uses (one subparagraph is redesignated).
  • Broad policy goal: To broaden what nonprofits can spend NSGP funds on so they can pay for staff who provide security and for help obtaining and managing the grants.
  • What is unclear: The bill does not define “onsite security personnel,” specify any training or oversight requirements for hired officers or guards, or provide new money for the program.

What it means for you#

  • Nonprofit organizations eligible for NSGP (for example, religious institutions, community centers):

    • Can use grant money to hire security guards or other onsite security staff.
    • Can use grant money to hire off‑duty police officers for security.
    • Can use up to 5% of their NSGP grant to pay staff (or contractors) who prepare the grant application or manage the grant.

  • Off‑duty police officers and local law enforcement agencies:

    • Officers may be hired by NSGP grantees for security work paid from federal grant funds.
    • Local agencies may see more requests for officers to work off duty for nonprofits; any pay/overtime rules remain governed by local employer policies and law.

  • DHS and grant administrators:

    • DHS will need to update program guidance and application materials to reflect the newly allowed uses and the 5% cap.
    • Grant reviewers will need to check that application/administration costs do not exceed the new 5% limit.

  • General public / community users of nonprofit spaces:

    • Some nonprofit sites may increase visible security staff or off‑duty officers, depending on how organizations use the funds.
    • The bill does not change who is eligible for grants or the total amount of money available.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on overall fiscal effects or additional funding is included in the bill text.

  • The bill does not appropriate new money. It only changes what existing NSGP grants may cover.
  • This could shift how existing grant dollars are spent (more toward personnel costs and less toward physical security projects), but the bill does not provide a cost estimate.
  • DHS may incur small administrative costs to update guidance and to monitor compliance with the new 5% limit. No estimate for those costs is provided.
  • Hiring off‑duty police often costs more per hour than other security staff; if grantees choose off‑duty officers, individual grant dollars could cover fewer total items or services. This is an expected effect inferred from the change, not a cost estimate in the bill.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to make it easier for nonprofits to pay for security staff and for help obtaining and managing grants.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that letting grantees pay for application and administration work (with a 5% cap) reduces a barrier to applying, especially for small organizations with limited staff.
  • Allowing onsite security personnel and off‑duty officers could be seen as improving immediate physical security options for vulnerable nonprofit sites.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that allowing NSGP funds to pay for off‑duty police and security personnel could reduce the money available for other protective measures (like cameras, barriers, or training).
  • The bill does not define “onsite security personnel” or set training, oversight, or reporting requirements for hired officers or guards. This could raise questions about accountability and standards.
  • Using grant funds to hire off‑duty officers may be more expensive per hour than other security measures, which could limit how many security needs a grant can address.
  • It is unclear whether the 5% cap on application/administration costs is enough to cover realistic application or grant‑management needs for some organizations, or whether it will be too high in some cases.