Safe Spaces for All Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 28, 2026
Bottom line
The bill clarifies and expands the types of security and administrative expenses that eligible nonprofits can cover using federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program funds.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to expand the eligible uses of funds under the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP). Specifically, it clarifies that NSGP funds can be used for hiring onsite security personnel, explicitly allows for the hiring of off-duty police officers, and permits the use of up to 5 percent of a grant for hiring personnel to assist with grant application and administration.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will enhance the security capabilities of vulnerable nonprofit organizations by providing greater flexibility in how they can utilize federal grant funds. They contend that explicitly allowing for onsite security personnel and off-duty police officers directly addresses pressing security needs, while permitting administrative costs will reduce barriers for smaller organizations to access and manage these critical grants.
Opponents contend
Critics may express concerns that expanding eligible uses, particularly for administrative costs, could divert a portion of funds away from direct physical security enhancements. Some might also raise questions about the appropriateness or effectiveness of using federal funds for off-duty police officers versus other security measures, or the potential for increased administrative overhead if not carefully managed.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2(1)
Clarification for Onsite Security Personnel
This provision amends the existing language of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) to explicitly state that funds can be used for 'hiring of onsite security personnel.' Previously, the language was broader, and this amendment clarifies that direct employment of security staff is an eligible expense, removing any ambiguity for grant recipients.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this clarification is essential for nonprofits to implement comprehensive security plans, as onsite personnel are often a critical component of immediate threat response and daily security operations. They contend it ensures funds can be used for the most effective security measures.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this clarification, as it generally enhances the utility of existing security grants. However, some might argue that a focus on personnel could detract from investment in physical infrastructure or technology.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for direct security staffing with other potential uses of grant funds, ensuring that organizations can choose the most appropriate mix of security measures for their specific risks.
Section 2(4), new subparagraph (E)
Eligibility for Hiring Off-Duty Police Officers
This new subparagraph explicitly allows Nonprofit Security Grant Program funds to be used for the 'Hiring of off-duty police officers.' This provides another option for nonprofits seeking to enhance their security, enabling them to contract with trained law enforcement personnel for protection during events or regular operations.
Section 2(4), new subparagraph (F)
Funding for Grant Application and Administration Personnel
This new subparagraph allows Nonprofit Security Grant Program funds to be used for 'Hiring personnel to apply for funding under this section,' with a crucial limitation: 'such expenses may not exceed 5 percent of the amount of the grant.' This aims to reduce the administrative burden for nonprofits, particularly smaller ones, in navigating the grant application and management process.
The bill allows NSGP funds to be used for hiring personnel to apply for funding, but explicitly caps these expenses at 5 percent of the total grant amount.
Section 2(4), new subparagraph (F)
Why it matters:The limitation is a standard legislative practice to prevent potential abuse or excessive spending on administrative overhead, ensuring the majority of funds still go towards the program's core purpose. It's a necessary detail for program integrity.
Case for: Proponents argue this cap is a reasonable safeguard, allowing nonprofits to cover legitimate administrative costs without significantly eroding the funds available for direct security measures. It balances accessibility with fiscal responsibility.
Case against: Some critics might argue that for very small grants, even 5% might be insufficient to cover the actual costs of professional grant writing and administration, potentially still disadvantaging the smallest organizations. Others might argue that any administrative cost is too much.
Estimated impact: This cap directly limits the portion of NSGP grants that can be allocated to administrative personnel, potentially saving federal funds for direct security uses while still providing some relief for grant applicants.