By Meghan Jacobsen, Grants Development Associate
The Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) is a highly sought-after funding opportunity for nonprofits that lack the security resources needed to protect their people and property from domestic or foreign terrorist threats. As someone who works closely with nonprofit organizations, NSGP season is the busiest time of year for me, and 2025 was no exception. After reviewing and editing countless NSGP applications, I have identified several mistakes I often see nonprofits make. This guide outlines best practices that will allow your organization to avoid the most common pitfalls when drafting your application.
Best Practice #1: Start Early
While the NSGP application process is straightforward, it can be time-consuming. Completing a vulnerability assessment and obtaining vendor quotes often requires significant lead time. Applicants should also allow ample time to gather relevant statistics that demonstrate heightened risk and to craft a clear, well-reasoned proposal. Starting early increases the likelihood of submitting a competitive, thoughtful, and well-supported application.
If you are beginning this process at the beginning of the application cycle opening, you may find gathering all the necessary components to be not feasible. Give yourself plenty of time, well before the window opens, to reduce the chance of not being able to submit at all.
Best Practice #2: Read the Application Guidance
This is a point we emphasize often because it truly cannot be overstated: carefully reading the application guidance before preparing or submitting any grant is essential. The guidance outlines what is required, how and where to submit materials, what expenses are eligible, and post-award management expectations. Failing to review these instructions can lead to mistakes that may result in a denied application.
For NSGP, reviewing the guidance is especially important because requirements vary by state. Some states require a pre-approval process, others mandate that applications be submitted through a state portal, while others accept submissions by email. States often specify file naming conventions, and most require the Investment Justification form to be submitted in a fillable format. Following these instructions is vital to a successful application and is clearly outlined in the state-issued application guidance.
Best Practice #3: Answer Each Question Directly and Stay On-Topic
When reviewing applications, I often see information placed in sections where it does not belong. In many cases, the content itself is strong but would be far more effective in a different section, and adds little value to the question being asked. At times, a direct answer to the question is missing altogether. When writing an application, it is essential to respond clearly and directly to each question and avoid including irrelevant or off-topic information. For example, a section that asks for your organization’s mission should focus solely on the mission—not on the reasons you are seeking funding, which is better suited under the “Threat” or “Vulnerability” sections.
To avoid this common mistake, reread each question and evaluate whether your response directly addresses what is being asked. If it does not, revise accordingly.
Best Practice #4: Focus on Terrorist Threats, Not Crime
A common mistake I see organizations make is forgetting that NSGP is an anti-terrorism grant. While it is appropriate to reference past criminal activity when describing threats, the program is specifically intended to fund organizations at heightened risk of terrorist attacks. Even if your organization has never experienced a direct terrorist threat, you should still use data and statistics that demonstrate risks to similar organizations. For example, a synagogue might cite national data showing an increase in antisemitic threats and violence to illustrate its elevated risk profile and the need for security funding.
Best Practice #5: Align Part IV (Facility Hardening) Responses Directly with Your Budget and Vulnerability Assessment
Part IV of the Investment Justification is often the most challenging section of the application for many organizations. Think of Part A as your budget justification—your budget expressed in words rather than numbers. This section should clearly describe and justify every cost included in your budget, explaining why each item is necessary and how it addresses the vulnerabilities identified in your vulnerability assessment. Write in clear, straightforward language so reviewers can easily understand how each proposed investment contributes to protecting your facility and the people you serve.
Part B is the numerical portion of your budget and is just as critical. Every line item must directly align with both the budget justification in Part A and the findings of the vulnerability assessment. Use the drop-down menu to select the appropriate Allowable Equipment List (AEL) numbers, and group all purchases within the same category on a single line. For example, if you are purchasing thirty cameras, they should be listed as one line item under one AEL number, with the total cost reflecting all units. This is where vendor quotes are essential to ensure accuracy.
Best Practice #6: Have a Second Set of Eyes Review Before Submitting
Before submitting your proposal, it is always recommended to have someone else review it. This goes beyond catching grammar or spelling errors—it helps ensure the proposal is clear and logical to someone unfamiliar with the project. If a section is confusing to a fresh reader, it will be confusing to a reviewer as well. An outside perspective allows you to identify gaps, clarify key points, and make refinements that strengthen the competitiveness of your proposal.
Careful planning, clear responses, and attention to detail are key to a strong NSGP application. By following best practices, you can submit a well-prepared proposal that effectively communicates your organization’s risk and funding needs.