Bill Overview
Title: Nonprofit and School Security Grant Program Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and expands the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. Under this program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes grants to eligible nonprofit organizations (tax-exempt organizations and those determined to be at risk of a terrorist attack) for target hardening and other security enhancements to protect against terrorist attacks. In particular, the bill makes elementary, secondary, private, and religious schools eligible for grants under the program.
Sponsors: Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-50]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with or serviced by nonprofit organizations and schools eligible for security grants
Estimated Size: 130000000
- The bill reauthorizes and expands a program to provide security grants, which will directly impact nonprofit organizations previously eligible under the program.
- Elementary, secondary, private, and religious schools are now explicitly included in the eligibility for these grants, broadening the scope further than before.
- Nonprofit organizations that are tax-exempt or at risk of terrorist attacks will continue to benefit from this program, ensuring enhanced security measures in potentially vulnerable locations.
- Given the inclusion of religious schools and organizations, communities that share particular religious affiliations may be impacted as they may receive increased security funding.
- The bill explicitly supports target hardening, which implies direct impacts for organizations facing threats of terrorism, given the nature of security improvements.
Reasoning
- The targeted population includes 1.5 million nonprofit organizations and approximately 130,000 K-12 schools, expanding previously designated organizations likely to receive enhanced security.
- While the allocations are substantial, the sheer number of potential recipients means not everyone will achieve optimal funding levels.
- Many people associated with nonprofits and schools may not perceive direct impacts on wellbeing initially, as security enhancements may not always translate to immediate changes in day-to-day life.
- For religious communities or entities historically at risk of terrorism, psychological benefits stemming from increased perceived safety could create significant improvement in wellbeing.
- Some entities may experience indirect benefits, such as improved community confidence, leading to secondary social and economic improvements over time.
- Budget constraints may mean initial impacts seem modest across individual wellbeing scores, but they might aggregate to broader societal improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Nonprofit Director (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am very hopeful this will improve the safety of our facility.
- Budgets are tight, and any assistance we can get for security is invaluable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased security grants will help us feel safer but I hope it doesn't stop just at cameras and locks.
- Safety is crucial, but we need investment in wellness, too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT Specialist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I think the program is necessary, my organization might not see much direct impact.
- Most of our security concerns are more digital than physical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Head of Religious Private School (Houston, TX)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been needing security enhancements for years.
- This funding is crucial for us to protect our students and staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Community Organizer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security funding is generally good, but broader community supports are also needed.
- Sometimes, funding security doesn't translate into perceived safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Police Officer (Boston, MA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security funding could prevent future incidents, which is reassuring.
- Though I feel secure now, it's good to see proactive measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Parent of Private School Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the grants are not just talk and they'll truly increase our school's security.
- This peace of mind would definitely lift some weight off our shoulders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
School Security Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more resources and better equipment for us, which is needed.
- Our school's security would benefit greatly from these added funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nonprofit Fundraiser (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Nonprofit funding for security is important, but I hope it doesn't take away from outreach funding.
- Safety is necessary, and any additional help is appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nonprofit Executive (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although we haven't faced threats, these improvements can help us prepare and feel more secure.
- Security isn't everything, but it's an important aspect to address.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $420000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $470000000)
Year 3: $440000000 (Low: $390000000, High: $490000000)
Year 5: $480000000 (Low: $430000000, High: $530000000)
Year 10: $550000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $600000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost estimate heavily depends on the actual uptake by eligible entities and the specific security needs assessed at each location.
- The political and social climate regarding security initiatives may affect the program's funding levels.
- Potential inflation in the security technology and services sector could impact overall costs.
- The balance of stringent threat assessment versus broad security measures will guide cost effectiveness.