AB 1836 creates the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program to fund physical security improvements and vulnerability/threat assessments for nonprofit organizations that face elevated risk of violent attacks or hate crimes. The bill lists eligible recipients (schools, clinics, community centers, houses of worship, and similar nonprofits), enumerates covered upgrades and services, and directs the state director to run the program and adopt application procedures.
The statute sets concrete budgetary and administrative limits—award maximum $500,000 per applicant, construction/renovation capped at $100,000 per award, and up to 5 percent of funds may pay grant management staff or contractors. The Office of Emergency Services must provide technical assistance and a resource page for vulnerability assessments; the program operates only if funded in the Budget Act and the director’s rules are exempt from the state Administrative Procedure Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a state-administered grant program to harden "soft targets" among nonprofits, funding security measures (guards, reinforced doors, lighting, alarms), vulnerability and threat assessments, mass notification systems, monitoring, and lifesaving emergency equipment. It authorizes pass-through grants to organizations that support clusters of nonprofits and allows up to 5 percent of each award for grant administration; construction spending is limited to $100,000 per award and individual awards cannot exceed $500,000.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California nonprofits at elevated risk of violent or hate-motivated attacks (religious institutions, community centers, clinics, schools), organizations that act as fiscal or service partners for clusters of nonprofits, security vendors and consultants, and the Office of Emergency Services as the technical-assistance provider and implementing agency.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a dedicated state funding stream to complement federal nonprofit security grants and lowers technical barriers by mandating state-provided vulnerability assessment assistance. The APA exemption and capped administrative funds speed implementation but shift design and oversight discretion to the director, changing how transparency and prioritization will work in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1836 sets up a new state grant program administered by the director to help nonprofit organizations reduce their exposure to violent attacks and hate crimes. Eligible recipients include schools, clinics, community centers, and houses of worship, along with other nonprofits that the director finds are at high risk.
Grants may pay for direct security measures—security guards, reinforced doors and gates, high-intensity lighting, alarms, and training—as well as assessments and systems such as mass notification and monitoring.
The bill allows an applicant to receive funds to support other nonprofits or a cluster of nonprofits; in that case the law explicitly lists vulnerability assessments, security trainings, mass notification alert systems, monitoring/response systems, and lifesaving emergency equipment as eligible uses. To limit overhead, recipients may use up to 5 percent of award funds to pay staff or third-party contractors to manage the grant, and construction or renovation tied to target hardening is capped at $100,000 per award.
No single applicant can receive more than $500,000.On procedural rules, the director must adopt application forms and administrative guidelines but those materials are exempt from the state Administrative Procedure Act’s formal rulemaking—meaning the director controls application mechanics without the usual regulatory notice-and-comment process. The statute also directs the Office of Emergency Services to provide ongoing technical assistance, including a public resource page with a toll-free number and continuous outreach, specifically to help applicants obtain vulnerability assessments for state applications or threat assessments for the federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program.
Finally, the program exists only if the Legislature appropriates funds in the annual Budget Act and the director must weigh whether applicants are likely targets of hate-motivated violence while not penalizing entities for prior grant receipts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The program awards grants for target hardening and assessments to nonprofits at high risk of violent or hate-motivated attacks, including houses of worship, schools, clinics, and community centers.
Individual awards are capped at $500,000 and construction or renovation for security is limited to $100,000 per award.
Recipients may spend up to 5 percent of their award to pay staff or contractors to manage and administer the grant funds.
The director must consider whether an applicant is more likely to be a target of hate-motivated violence and may fund organizations that support clusters of nonprofits.
Application procedures and administrative guidelines are exempted from the state Administrative Procedure Act, and the Office of Emergency Services must provide a resource page, toll-free number, and ongoing outreach for vulnerability assessments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes program purpose and eligible target types
This provision creates the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program and defines its mission: improving the physical security of nonprofits that are high-risk targets for violent attacks or hate crimes. By listing examples (schools, clinics, community centers, churches, synagogues, mosques, temples), the bill signals a broad, mission-based eligibility standard rather than a narrow, sector-only approach—useful when the director later defines eligible organizations in guidelines.
Eligible uses for direct applicants and cluster support
The statute authorizes grants to pay for 'hardening' measures for the applicant itself and explicitly for applicants that support other nonprofits or clusters. For single applicants the allowed enhancements include security personnel, reinforced access points, lighting, alarms, and training. For supporting applicants or clusters the bill expands the list to include vulnerability assessments, mass notification systems, monitoring and response systems, and lifesaving emergency equipment—making clear the program contemplates both physical upgrades and communications/response investments for networks of nonprofits.
Different lists for direct versus cluster-oriented spending
The bill separates the eligible-category lists: subsection (A) focuses on on-site security improvements for the applicant itself, while subsection (B) lists services and systems suited to multi-site or support organizations. Practically, this distinction matters for applicants serving as fiscal agents: they can channel funds to assessments and alert systems for several entities, which affects budgeting, procurement, and reporting requirements when a single award benefits multiple sites.
Administrative cost cap and construction/renovation limit
Recipients may allocate no more than 5 percent of their award to pay staff or third-party contractors for grant management—this restricts overhead but may constrain program coordination for clustered grants. Construction or renovation tied to target hardening is capped at $100,000 of an award, so projects requiring substantial structural work (major remodels or new construction) will not be fully fundable and applicants will need to supplement state funding or re-scope projects toward lower-cost hardening measures.
Award ceiling, prior-grant nondiscrimination, and risk prioritization
No single applicant can receive more than $500,000. The director is barred from considering prior history of receiving grant funding to improve physical security when evaluating applications—this prevents penalizing repeat recipients. Simultaneously, the director must weigh whether an applicant is more likely to be a target of hate-motivated violence, making risk of hate-based attacks an affirmative prioritization factor during award decisions.
Budget contingency and procedural-exemption authority
The program is explicitly contingent on an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, so it has no independent funding stream. The director must adopt application procedures, forms, and administrative guidelines but those materials are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act, concentrating discretion in the implementing office and shortening the timeline to set program rules while limiting formal public rulemaking avenues.
Office of Emergency Services technical assistance obligation
OES must provide ongoing technical help to nonprofits seeking vulnerability assessments for state applications or threat assessments for federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program filings. The statute requires a publicly available resource page with a toll-free number and continuous outreach outside the grant cycle, which aims to reduce technical barriers to applying but also creates an operational obligation for OES to maintain a helpline and outreach program.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Religious institutions and faith-based nonprofits — the bill explicitly lists houses of worship and directs funds for reinforced access points, security personnel, and alert systems, addressing common soft-target vulnerabilities.
- Small and clustered nonprofits — organizations that act as fiscal sponsors or service hubs can receive funds to support clusters, enabling shared vulnerability assessments and mass-notification systems that individual small nonprofits might not otherwise afford.
- Communities that host high-risk nonprofits — improved physical security and mass-notification systems reduce risk exposure for staff, visitors, and neighboring properties during violent incidents or threats.
Who Bears the Cost
- State budget and taxpayers — the program operates only if the Legislature appropriates funds, so creating and sustaining the program competes with other budget priorities and imposes a fiscal cost on the state.
- Office of Emergency Services and the implementing director’s office — the bill assigns ongoing technical-assistance, outreach, and program administration duties without creating a dedicated administrative funding stream; OES will need staff and operational capacity to maintain the resource page and hotline.
- Nonprofits receiving improvements — while grants cover upgrades, recipients assume long-term maintenance, replacement, and operational costs for equipment and systems, which may create recurring expenses not covered by one-time awards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to deliver fast, flexible protection to nonprofits at elevated risk while minimizing administrative overhead and regulatory delay; that focus improves speed and access but concentrates discretionary power in the implementing office and may reduce transparency, create allocation inefficiencies, and under-resource the administrative work needed to serve clustered or small nonprofits effectively.
The statute packs speed and flexibility into program design but leaves several operational and equity questions unresolved. Exempting application procedures from the Administrative Procedure Act reduces delay but also narrows public review and formal stakeholder input, concentrating discretion in the director’s office; that matters when the director must make judgment calls about which groups are "more likely" to be targets of hate-motivated violence.
The law forbids considering an applicant’s prior receipt of security grants, which protects repeat recipients from being penalized but also risks duplicative funding or inefficient allocation if scarce funds go repeatedly to the same entities without a clear measure of incremental need.
Caps on spending create trade-offs: a $100,000 ceiling for construction prevents large structural projects from being financed entirely by this program, which may be sensible for a target-hardening grant but will force applicants with major facility needs to cobble together multiple funding sources. The 5 percent cap on administrative spending limits overhead and may encourage efficient grant management, but it may be insufficient for entities coordinating multi-site clusters or for robust technical assistance, particularly given the program’s requirement that OES provide continuous outreach and a helpline.
Finally, the bill leaves key operational definitions and prioritization criteria to guidance from the director—how "high risk" will be defined, how cluster funding is audited, and how OES will staff the required assistance are policy choices with meaningful distributional and accountability consequences that the statute does not resolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.