Tech abuse survivor grants

Summary#

This bill creates two related grant programs to help victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking who face abuse that uses technology (called “technological abuse”). The first is a pilot grant program run by the Office on Violence Against Women to fund local partnerships that pair technologists with victim service providers. The second funds nonprofit groups and colleges to develop training, tools, and curricula about technological abuse.

• Main change: Authorizes up to 15 pilot grants of no more than $2,000,000 each to eligible consortia, and authorizes up to $20,000,000 in education and training grants over 5 years.
• Requires the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women to consult HHS, Education, and the FCC when setting up the pilot and to report to Congress on the pilot’s effectiveness.
• Allows grant money to buy new technology for victims and to be used for broad victim services that reduce technological abuse.
• Requires a local, State, Tribal, or territorial letter of support for each pilot applicant.
• The pilot ends 5 years after the first award; the Director must report at 3 years and again after the pilot ends.

What it means for you#

• Victims and survivors

  • This could mean local domestic violence or sexual assault programs may receive funds to buy devices (phones, laptops, secure devices) or provide services to reduce technology-based stalking or harassment.
  • Survivors may get access to technical help or services from volunteers or technologists working with service providers.

• Domestic violence and sexual violence centers

  • Centers can form partnerships with tech programs or companies to apply for pilot grants and may receive funding to add tech-related services to their offerings.
  • Centers will need to secure a government letter of support to be part of an eligible consortium.

• Colleges, universities, and technical partners

  • Institutions that teach cybersecurity, computer science, or similar fields can partner with service providers to apply for pilot grants or receive education grants to build curricula and tools.
  • These partnerships may recruit students or volunteers to provide technical assistance to survivors.

• Nonprofit organizations and trainers

  • Nonprofits can apply for grants to create training, tools, and materials to help organizations and individuals support victims of technological abuse.

• Local, State, Tribal, and territorial governments

  • Governments may be asked to provide letters of support for consortia applying for pilot grants.

• General public

  • The program aims to test approaches and report to Congress so lawmakers can decide whether to create a permanent program.

Expenses#

No direct federal cost estimate is in the bill text. The bill sets limits that allow a maximum amount of grant awards but does not specify a single total appropriation.

• Maximum direct grant awards (from the bill language):
  • Up to 15 pilot grants × up to $2,000,000 each = up to $30,000,000.
  • Up to $20,000,000 total for education and training grants.
  • Combined, the programs could fund up to $50,000,000 in grants, if fully awarded as limited in the text.
• Unspecified costs:
  • The bill authorizes “such sums as are necessary” for both programs, so actual appropriations would be set later by Congress.
  • The bill does not provide a fiscal note for administrative costs, staffing, or oversight. Those costs are not estimated in the text.
• Other possible costs or burdens:
  • Applicants may face costs to form eligible consortia and obtain required letters of support.
  • Ongoing support for devices or programs after grant periods is not detailed.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to address the growing problem of abuse that uses phones, apps, social media, spyware, and other technology.
• Supporters may argue the pilot will help survivors get practical tech fixes (secure devices, technical assistance) and add tech expertise to local victim services.
• The bill could improve victim services by funding training and curricula so service providers better understand tech-related abuse.
• Creating a pilot with reporting requirements could build evidence on what works and inform whether a permanent program is needed.
• The requirement to consult HHS, Education, and the FCC could help align health, education, and communications expertise with victim services.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill does not include a clear appropriation amount—language says “such sums as are necessary,” so total cost depends on future congressional action.
• The allowed uses of grant funds are broad (including “any other use” to reduce technological abuse), which may raise questions about clear spending rules and oversight.
• The bill does not lay out selection criteria, performance measures, or safeguards for privacy and security of survivors who receive devices or services; this is left to program design.
• Requiring a government letter of support could create a barrier for some local providers, especially in areas with limited government capacity or strained relations.
• The pilot limits (maximum 15 grants) may mean many areas or populations would not receive funding, and the bill does not explain how geographic or population coverage will be chosen.