Title: Selection and Application Guide to Police
Body Armor.
Series: N/A
Author: National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center/National Institute of Justice
Published: October 1998
Subject: Police equipment
138 pages
225,000 bytes

-------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not
included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view
this document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from NLECTC at 800-248-2742.

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

Selection and Application Guide to Police Body
Armor

NIJ Guide 100-98

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Nol Brennan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis
Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

National Institute of Justice
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

Selection and Application Guide to 
Police Body Armor

NIJ Guide 100-98
(Replaces NIJ Guide 100-87)

October 1998

Published by:
The National Institute of Justice's
National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center
Lance Miller, Testing Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160, Rockville, MD 20849-1160
800-248-2742; 301-519-5060

NCJ 169587 

------------------------------

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis
Director

Office of Science and Technology
Wendy Howe
Program Manager, Standards and Testing

The National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center is supported by Cooperative
Agreement 96-MU-MU-K011 awarded by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice. The products,
manufacturers, and organizations discussed in this
publication are presented for informational
purposes only and do not constitute product
approval or endorsement by the National Institute
of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; National
Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
Department of Commerce; or Aspen Systems
Corporation.

This publication has been reviewed and approved by
the Weapons and Protective Systems Subcommittee
and Executive Committee of the Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Advisory Council.

The National Institute of Justice is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.

------------------------------

Foreword

The National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center (NLECTC) is pleased to present
this updated version of the Selection and
Application Guide to Police Body Armor, the first
revision since 1989. Recognizing the significant
advances in ballistic protection materials and
body armor design technology since the last
version was published, we believe this guide will
serve as an invaluable tool for law enforcement
administrators and procurement officials
responsible for body armor selection and
purchasing. We also strongly encourage trainers
and all officers who are issued body armor to
review this guide. The guide will enhance their
understanding of the benefits of the routine use
of body armor, as well as dispel some common myths
and misconceptions regarding body armor selection
and use.

Many individuals were integral to the development
of this guide, either through their direct efforts
or by providing information about their
organizations. We would like to take this
opportunity to recognize them:

Foremost, a note of appreciation goes to Mr.
Lester D. Shubin, formerly Program Manager for
Standards of the National Institute of Justice,
Mr. Lawrence K. Eliason, formerly the Chief of the
Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory (LESL, now
known as the Office of Law Enforcement Standards,
or OLES), and to Mr. Daniel E. Frank, formerly
Manager of the Protective Equipment Program of the
Office of Law Enforcement Standards at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
These men were responsible for preparing the
original version of this document, first published
in 1987 and revised in 1989.

We would also like to thank the following
individuals and organizations who provided
information that helped to develop this
publication:

Bill Brierley and Anna Knight, International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)/DuPont
Kevlar Survivors' Club[registered trademark]

John Dottore, DuPont

Craig Floyd, National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund, Inc.

Ray Glaser and Sophie Wray, AlliedSignal

Steven Lightsey, National Technical Systems

Stephen J. Marquedant, National Quality Assurance,
USA Inc.

David Hand, Akzo Nobel

Gail Smith, The National "We Care" Foundation

Carl Soderstrom, M.D., R. Adams Cowley Shock
Trauma Center

Carrie Booth, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Public
Safety Officers' Benefits Program

Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice
Statistics

Tom Chancey and Frankie Murphy, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Criminal Justice Information
Services Division, Programs Support Section

Lance Miller
Testing Coordinator
National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center 

------------------------------

Table of Contents

Foreword
About the National Institute of Justice
About the Law Enforcement and Corrections
Standards and Testing Program
About the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center System
About the Office of Law Enforcement Standards
1. Introduction
2. Background
   A History of Body Armor
   The History of NIJ's Body Armor Testing Program
3. Why Wear Body Armor?
   The Cost
   The Threat
   Not Just Bullets
   2,000-Plus Reasons

4. Body Armor Construction
   How Does Body Armor Work?
   Methods of Construction
   Materials Used
5. The NIJ Standard
   Developing the Standard
   Armor Classification
   Requirements
   Performance Testing
   V50 Testing
   ISO 9000
   Cooperative Efforts Between NLECTC and Industry
   The Standards Review Process
6. The Right Protection
   Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection
   The "Takeaway" Problem
   Armor Styles
   Comfort and Fit
   Coverage
7. Purchasing Body Armor
   Overview
   The Procurement Process
   Ensuring Compliance Status
   Model Procurement Specifications
   Protection/Testing Considerations
8. Maintaining Body Armor
9. Body Armor Life Expectancy
   Body Armor Testing by Departments
10. Administrative Considerations
    Training and Education
    Issuing Body Armor
    Donating Serviceable Used Armor
    Disposing of Body Armor
    Liability
    When an Officer Is Shot
Epilogue
Endnotes
Bibliography
Appendix A: Resource List
Appendix B: Frequently Asked Questions
Appendix C: The Effect of Body Armor on the Risk
of Fatality in Felonious Assaults on Police
Officers
Appendix D: Model Procurement Specifications

Appendix E: Body Armor Inspection Sheet

------------------------------

About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a
component of the Office of Justice Programs, is
the research agency of the U.S. Department of
Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ is
authorized to support research, evaluation, and
demonstration programs, development of technology,
and both national and international information
dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct
NIJ to: 

o Sponsor special projects and research and
development programs that will improve and
strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce
or prevent crime.

o Conduct national demonstration projects that
employ innovative or promising approaches for
improving criminal justice.

o Develop new technologies to fight crime and
improve criminal justice.

o Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice
programs and identify programs that promise to be
successful if continued or repeated.

o Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal,
State, and local governments as well as by private
organizations to improve criminal justice. 

o Carry out research on criminal behavior.

o Develop new methods of crime prevention and
reduction of crime and delinquency. 

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its
initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime
Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and
private foundations, advances in technology, and a
new international focus. Some examples of these
new initiatives: 

o New research and evaluation is exploring key
issues in community policing, violence against
women, sentencing reforms, and specialized courts
such as drug courts.

o Dual-use technologies are being developed to
support national defense and local law enforcement
needs.

o Four regional National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers (NLECTC), a Border
Research and Technology Center, and three special
offices have joined the National Center in
Rockville, Maryland, to form the NLECTC system.

o The causes, treatment, and prevention of
violence against women and violence within the
family are being investigated in cooperation with
several agencies of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. 

o NIJ's links with the international community are
being strengthened through membership in the
United Nations network of criminological
institutes; participation in developing the U.N.
Criminal Justice Information Network; initiation
of UNOJUST (U.N. Online Justice Clearinghouse),
which electronically links the institutes to the
U.N. network; and establishment of an NIJ
International Center. 

o The NIJ-administered criminal justice
information clearinghouse, the world's largest,
has improved its online capability.

o The Institute's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)
program has been expanded and enhanced. Renamed
ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring), the program
will increase the number of drug-testing sites,
and its role as a "platform" for studying
drug-related crime will grow.

o NIJ's new Crime Mapping Research Center will
provide training in computer mapping technology,
collect and archive geocoded crime data, and
develop analytic software. 

o The Institute's program of intramural research
has been expanded and enhanced.

The Institute Director, who is appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate, establishes
the Institute's objectives, guided by the
priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the
Department of Justice, and the needs of the
criminal justice field. The Institute actively
solicits the views of criminal justice
professionals and researchers in the continuing
search for answers that inform public policymaking
in crime and justice.

About the Law Enforcement and Corrections
Standards and Testing Program

The Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and
Testing Program is sponsored by the Office of
Science and Technology of the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Department of Justice. The
program responds to the mandate of the Justice
System Improvement Act of 1979, which directed NIJ
to encourage research and development to improve
the criminal justice system and to disseminate the
results to Federal, State, and local agencies.

The Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and
Testing Program is an applied research effort that
determines the technological needs of justice
system agencies, sets minimum performance
standards for specific devices, tests commercially
available equipment against those standards, and
disseminates the standards and the test results to
criminal justice agencies nationwide and
internationally.

The program operates through the following:

o The Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Advisory Council (LECTAC), consisting of
nationally recognized criminal justice
practitioners from Federal, State, and local
agencies, assesses technological needs and sets
priorities for research programs and items to be
evaluated and tested.

o The Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES)
at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology develops voluntary national performance
standards for compliance testing to ensure that
individual items of equipment are suitable for use
by criminal justice agencies. The equipment
standards developed by OLES are based upon
laboratory evaluation of commercially available
products in order to devise precise test methods
that can be universally applied by any qualified
testing laboratory and to establish minimum
performance requirements for each attribute of a
piece of equipment that is essential to how it
functions. OLES-developed standards can serve as
design criteria for manufacturers or as the basis
for equipment evaluation. The application of the
standards, which are highly technical in nature,
is augmented through the publication of equipment
performance reports and user guides. Individual
jurisdictions may use the standards in their own
laboratories to test equipment, have equipment
tested on their behalf using the standards, or
cite the standards in procurement specifications.

o The National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center (NLECTC), operated by a grantee,
supervises a national compliance testing program
conducted by independent laboratories. The
standards developed by OLES serve as performance
benchmarks against which commercial equipment is
measured. The facilities, personnel, and testing
capabilities of the independent laboratories are
evaluated by OLES prior to testing each item of
equipment. In addition, OLES helps NLECTC staff
review and analyze data. Test results are
published in consumer product reports designed to
help justice system procurement officials make
informed purchasing decisions.

Publications are available at no charge through
the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center. Some documents are also
available online through the Justice Technology
Information Network (JUSTNET), the center's
Internet/World Wide Web site. To request a
document or additional information, call 800-248-
2742 or 301-519-5060, or write:

National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center
P.O. Box 1160
Rockville, MD 20849-1160
E-mail: asknlectc@nlectc.org
World Wide Web address: http://www.nlectc.org

About the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center System

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ),
responding to recommendations from the law
enforcement and corrections community, converted
its Technology Assessment Program Information
Center (TAPIC) into the National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system,
which encompasses the national center, four
regional centers, the Border Research and
Technology Center, the Office of Law Enforcement
Standards (OLES), the Office of Law Enforcement
Technology Commercialization (OLETC), and the
National Center for Forensic Science.

These facilities are part of a law enforcement and
corrections information network that will make it
easier for agencies and organizations to locate
new products and for industry to identify law
enforcement and corrections requirements.

NLECTC's major responsibilities and goals are to:

o Work with OLES to establish voluntary standards
for selected law enforcement equipment and to
manage voluntary compliance testing programs.

o Develop critical product databases for law
enforcement and corrections that include such
information as who manufactures what, who the
points of contact are, what testing or evaluation
information is available, and what other law
enforcement agencies use the product and can
discuss its effectiveness.

o Assist law enforcement in understanding what
technologies are available, how they can be used,
and what advantages they offer.

o Evaluate products such as body armor, firearms,
vehicle tires, and handcuffs.

o Conduct field demonstrations of new law
enforcement and corrections technologies.

o Collect law enforcement and corrections needs
and requirements information for use by industry
in developing affordable technologies for law
enforcement and corrections.

o Disseminate information about its resources and
services through newsletters, product bulletins,
consumer product lists, articles in criminal
justice periodicals, exhibits and presentations at
criminal justice conferences, and online access.

o Coordinate the Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC), which is
composed of nationally recognized criminal justice
professionals from Federal, State, and local law
enforcement and corrections agencies. LECTAC helps
NIJ set priorities for developing new equipment
standards, testing available products, and
establishing future program initiatives for
NLECTC.

To receive more information or to add your name to
the NLECTC mailing list, call 800-248-2742 or 301-
519-5060, or write:

National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center
P.O. Box 1160
Rockville, MD 20849-1160
E-mail: asknlectc@nlectc.org
World Wide Web address: http://www.nlectc.org

The following is a list of NLECTC regional and
affiliated facilities that assist NIJ in
fulfilling its mission.

NLECTC-Northeast
26 Electronic Parkway
Rome, NY 13441-4514
(p) 888-338-0584
(f) 315-330-4315
E-mail: nlectc_ne@rl.af.mil

NLECTC-Southeast
7325 Peppermill Parkway
North Charleston, SC 29418
(p) 800-292-4385
(f) 803-207-7776
E-mail: nlectc-se@nlectc-se.org

NLECTC-Rocky Mountain
2050 East Iliff Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
(p) 800-416-8086
(f) 303-871-2500
E-mail: nlectc@du.edu

NLECTC-West
c/o The Aerospace Corporation
2350 East El Segundo Boulevard
El Segundo, CA 90245-4691
(p) 888-548-1618
(f) 310-336-2227
E-mail: nlectc@law-west.org

Border Research and Technology Center
225 Broadway
Suite 740
San Diego, CA 92101-5005
(p) 619-232-1276 or 888-656-2782
(f) 619-232-1451 or 888-660-2782
E-mail: brtcchrisa@aol.com

Office of Law Enforcement Technology
Commercialization
316 Washington Avenue
Wheeling, WV 26003
(p) 888-306-5382
(f) 304-243-2131
E-mail: oletc@nttc.edu

Office of Law Enforcement Standards
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Building 225, Room A323
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
(p) 301-975-2757
(f) 301-948-0978
E-mail: oles@nist.gov

National Center for Forensic Science
P.O. Box 162367
Orlando, FL 32816-2367
(p) 407-823-6469
(f) 407-823-3162
E-mail: natlctr@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu 

About the Office of Law Enforcement Standards

The Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) was
established as a matrix management organization in
1971 through a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Departments of Justice and Commerce based upon
the recommendations of the President's Commission
on Crime. OLES' mission is to apply science and
technology to the needs of the criminal justice
community, including law enforcement, corrections,
forensic science, and the fire service. While its
major objective is to develop minimum performance
standards, which are promulgated as voluntary
national standards, OLES also undertakes studies
leading to the publication of technical reports
and user guides.

The areas of research investigated by OLES include
clothing, communication systems, emergency
equipment, investigative aids, protective
equipment, security systems, vehicles, weapons,
and analytical techniques and standard reference
materials used by the forensic science community.
The composition of OLES' projects varies,
depending upon priorities of the criminal justice
community at any given time and, as necessary,
draws upon the resources of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology.

OLES assists law enforcement and criminal justice
agencies in acquiring, on a cost-effective basis,
the high-quality resources they need to do their
jobs. To accomplish this, OLES:

o Develops methods for testing equipment
performance and examining evidentiary materials.

o Develops standards for equipment and operating
procedures.

o Develops standard reference materials.

o Performs other scientific and engineering
research as required.

Since the program began in 1971, OLES has
coordinated the development of nearly 200
standards, user guides, and advisory reports.
Topics range from performance parameters of police
patrol vehicles, performance reports on various
speed-measuring devices, body armor testing, to
analytical procedures for developing DNA profiles.

The application of technology to enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal
justice community continues to increase. The
proper adoption of the products resulting from
emerging technologies and the assessment of
performance of equipment, systems, methodologies,
etc., used by criminal justice practitioners
constitute critical issues having safety and legal
ramifications. The consequences of inadequate
equipment performance or inadequate test methods
can range from inconvenient to catastrophic. In
addition, these deficiencies can adversely affect
the general population when they increase public
safety costs, preclude arrest, or result in
evidence found to be inadmissible in court.

------------------------------

1. Introduction

Lightweight body armor has been widely available
for use by law enforcement personnel for more than
20 years. The dramatic reduction in officer
homicides following the introduction of body
armor, as shown in exhibit 1, attests to the
protection it provides. This success story extends
far beyond protection from handguns--an estimated
2,150 [1] lives have been spared, including cases
in which body armor prevented serious injuries to
officers from other types of assaults or
accidents.

The National Institute of Justice [2] (NIJ) has
developed standards for body armor performance
through its Office of Law Enforcement Standards
(OLES). Body armor has been tested as a part of
the NLECTC voluntary equipment testing program to
determine compliance with the NIJ standard, and
NLECTC disseminates those test results and other
pertinent information to the law enforcement and
corrections communities. A consumer product list
of armor models that comply with the requirements
of the standard is available from NLECTC.[3]

While body armor is a household word in the law
enforcement community, questions about its
selection and use are frequently asked. This guide
responds to commonly expressed concerns. It
provides information to help determine what level
of protection is consistent with the threats to
which individual officers are exposed. It also
discusses selection of armor from the variety of
styles available, together with the proper care of
armor in service. The NIJ standard is discussed in
detail, as well as the use of the standard in
armor procurement. In addition, the guide
discusses administrative concerns, including the
issue of replacing inservice armor, and describes
other sources of information.

NIJ asks all departments to exercise prudent
judgment in selecting armor appropriate to their
needs. In so doing, NIJ urges proper attention to
those factors that affect the wearability of armor
in order to encourage routine, full-time use by
all on-duty officers. The temptation to order
armor that provides more protection than
realistically needed should be resisted, because
doing so may increase the likelihood that the
armor will not be worn routinely.

------------------------------

2. Background

A History of Body Armor

Humans throughout recorded history have used
various types of materials to protect themselves
from injury in combat and other dangerous
situations. At first, protective clothing and
shields were made from animal skins. As
civilizations became more advanced, wooden shields
and then metal shields came into use. Eventually,
metal was also used as "clothing," what we now
refer to as the suit of armor associated with the
knights of the Middle Ages. However, with the
advent of firearms (c.1500), most of the
traditional protective devices were no longer
effective. In fact, the only real protection
available against firearms were man-made barriers,
such as stone or masonry walls, or natural
barriers, such as rocks, trees, and ditches.

One of the first recorded instances of the use of
soft armor was by the medieval Japanese, who used
armor manufactured from silk. Although the first
U.S. law enforcement officer to lose his life in
the line of duty, U.S. Marshall Robert Forsyth,
was shot and killed in 1794,[4] it was not until
the late 19th century that the first use of soft
armor in the United States was recorded. 

At that time, the military explored the
possibility of using soft armor manufactured from
silk. The project even attracted congressional
attention after the assassination of President
William McKinley in 1901. But while the garments
were shown to be effective against low-velocity
bullets (traveling at 400 feet per second (ft/s)
or less), they did not offer protection against
the new generation of handgun ammunition being
introduced at that time that traveled at
velocities of more than 600 feet per second. This,
along with the prohibitive cost of manufacturing
the garment ($80 each, which amounts to
approximately $1,400 in 1998 dollars) made the
concept unacceptable. Armor of this type was said
to have been worn by Archduke Francis Ferdinand of
Austria when he was killed by a shot to the head,
thereby precipitating World War I.[5] 

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office lists records
dating back to 1919 for various designs of
bullet-resistant garments. One of the first
documented instances where such a vest was
demonstrated for use by law enforcement officers
is detailed in the April 2, 1931 edition of the
Washington, D.C., Evening Star, where a vest was
demonstrated to members of the Metropolitan Police
Department. However, none of these designs proved
entirely effective or feasible for law enforcement
or corrections use.

The next generation of ballistic vests was
introduced during World War II. The "flak jacket,"
constructed of ballistic nylon, provided
protection primarily from munitions fragments and
was ineffective against most pistol and rifle
threats. These vests were also very cumbersome and
bulky, and were restricted primarily to military
use. It would not be until the late 1960s that new
fibers were discovered that made today's modern
generation of concealable body armor possible. 

The History of NIJ's Body Armor Testing Program

During the 1960s this country witnessed a dramatic
rise in officer fatalities. From 1966 to 1971, the
number of law enforcement officers killed each
year in the line of duty more than doubled, from
57 to 129 (see exhibit 1). Concerned by this rapid
increase in officer fatalities and recognizing
that a majority of the homicides were inflicted
with handguns, the National Institute of Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ)--
predecessor of the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ)--initiated a research program to investigate
development of a lightweight body armor that
on-duty police could wear full time.

The investigation readily identified new materials
that could be woven into a lightweight fabric with
excellent ballistic-resistant properties.
Following initial laboratory research, the agency
concluded that the objective of producing body
armor suitable for full-time police use was
achievable. In a parallel effort, the National
Bureau of Standards' (now known as the National
Institute of Standards and Technology) Law
Enforcement Standards Laboratory (now known as the
Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES))
developed a performance standard [6] that defined
ballistic-resistant requirements for police body
armor. The National Bureau of Standards was a part
of the NIJ Technology Assessment Program, which
today is known as the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC).

Of all the equipment developed and evaluated in
the 1970s by NIJ, one of its most significant
achievements was the development of body armor
that employed DuPont's Kevlar[registered
trademark] ballistic fabric. Ironically, the
fabric was originally intended to replace steel
belting in vehicle tires. Lester Shubin, who
served as NIJ Technology Assessment Program
Manager from 1971-1991, recalls:

The Army notified me that DuPont had a new fabric
to replace steel belting for high-speed tires.
When I saw it, I realized it might be a great
improvement over nylon for personal armor.

Nicholas Montanarelli, then an Army Land Warfare
technology specialist, and I took a piece of
Kevlar[registered trademark] to a gun range. We
folded it over a couple of times and shot at it.
The bullets didn't go through.

During the following 5 years, from 1971 to 1976,
more than $3 million of NIJ funds were devoted to
the development of body armor. The research and
development program was a team effort involving
several of the most innovative and technologically
advanced private and government organizations in
the country. Contractors from the private sector
were The Aerospace Corporation and MITRE
Corporation. The U.S. Army's contribution included
the efforts of Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving
Grounds, and Natick Laboratories. The Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory and the National Bureau of
Standards were also involved in the program, as
were the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
the Secret Service.

The development of body armor by NIJ was a
four-phase effort that took place over several
years. The first phase involved testing
Kevlar[registered trademark] fabric to determine
whether it could stop a lead bullet. The second
phase involved determining the number of layers of
material necessary to prevent penetration by
bullets of varying speeds and calibers and
developing a prototype vest that would protect
officers against the most common threats--the .38
Special and the .22 Long Rifle bullets. Bullets
from 9mm, .45, and .32 caliber weapons were also
investigated.

By 1973, researchers at the Army's Edgewood
Arsenal responsible for vest design had developed
a garment made of seven layers of
Kevlar[registered trademark] fabric for use in
field trials. During this preliminary testing,
environmental trials determined that the
penetration resistance of Kevlar[registered
trademark] was degraded when wet. The
bullet-resistant properties of the fabric also
diminished upon exposure to ultraviolet light,
including sunlight. Drycleaning agents and bleach
also had a negative effect on the antiballistic
properties of the fabric, as did repeated washing.
To protect against these problems, the vest was
designed with waterproofing, as well as with
fabric coverings to prevent exposure to sunlight
and other degrading agents.

The third phase of the initiative involved
extensive medical testing to determine the
performance level of body armor that would be
necessary to save police officers' lives. It was
clear to researchers that even when a bullet was
stopped by the flexible fabric, the impact and
resulting trauma from the bullet would leave a
severe bruise at a minimum and, at worst, could
kill by damaging critical organs. Subsequently,
Army scientists designed tests to determine the
effects of blunt trauma, which is injuries
suffered from forces created by the bullet
impacting the armor. A byproduct of the research
on blunt trauma was the improvement of tests that
measure blood gases, which indicate the extent of
injuries to the lungs.

The final phase involved monitoring the armor's
wearability and effectiveness. An initial test in
three cities determined that the vest was
wearable, it did not cause undue stress or
pressure on the torso, and it did not prevent the
normal body movement necessary for police work. In
1975, an extensive field test of the new
Kevlar[registered trademark] body armor was
conducted, with 15 urban police departments
cooperating. Each department served a population
larger than 250,000, and each had experienced
officer assault rates higher than the national
average. The tests involved 5,000 garments,
including 800 purchased from commercial sources.
Among the factors evaluated were comfort when worn
for a full working day, its adaptability in
extremes of temperature, and its durability
through long periods of use.

Equally important in this test was the
psychological effect of the garments on the
officers--whether wearing them would enable them
to be more confident or relaxed in their
encounters with the public or inspire them to take
more chances with their lives or the lives of
others. The tests showed that the armor could be
worn without restricting officers' ability to do
their jobs and, more importantly, that the vests
worked. The first instance of a vest's saving a
participating officer's life occurred less than 6
months after it was issued to him. During the
1-year demonstration period, 18 shooting incidents
occurred in which body armor successfully
protected the officers. The demonstration project
armor issued by NIJ was designed to ensure a
95-percent probability of survival after being hit
with a .38 caliber bullet at a velocity of 800
ft/s. Furthermore, the probability of requiring
surgery if hit by a projectile was to be 10
percent or less.

A final report released in 1976 concluded that the
new ballistic material was effective in providing
a bullet-resistant garment that was light and
wearable for full-time use. Private industry was
quick to recognize the potential market for the
new generation of body armor, and body armor
became commercially available in quantity even
before the NIJ demonstration program.

For the past 25 years, the routine use of body
armor by law enforcement officers occurred
primarily in the United States because assault by
firearms on law enforcement officers in other
countries was not as common. However, with the
proliferation of international terrorism and
related firearms attacks against officers, the use
of body armor in other countries is becoming
increasingly commonplace. NLECTC has seen a
dramatic increase in the number of submissions of
new body armor models from manufacturers around
the world. The NIJ standard for police body armor
has gained worldwide acceptance as a benchmark to
judge the effectiveness of a given body armor
model. In response, NIJ is reaching out to the
international community in a cooperative effort
for the development of future revisions of the
standard.

Today, more than 50 manufacturers produce body
armor and participate in NIJ's voluntary
compliance testing program. Other types of
bullet-resistant armor, which were much heavier
and bulkier than vests made with the new
technology, have virtually disappeared from the
market. Estimates indicate that the body armor
industry conducts $200 million in business in the
United States annually, the majority of which is
for use related to law enforcement and the
military.[7]

NIJ's body armor program was instrumental in
developing a garment that is not only wearable,
but that has contributed significantly to the
safety of our Nation's law enforcement officers.
Every facet of the development phase was aimed at
protecting the life of the law officer on the
street. This remains the program's purpose today.

------------------------------

3. Why Wear Body Armor?

The Cost 

Since the death of U.S. Marshall Robert Forsyth
more than 200 years ago, more than 14,000 officers
have fallen in the line of duty--many of these men
and women killed by firearms.[8]

The use of weapons of all types, particularly
handguns by those with criminal intent, poses a
constant threat to police officers, whether they
are responding to a domestic quarrel or to an
armed robbery. All too frequently, a domestic
disturbance erupts into violence when family
members redirect their anger toward the officer
attempting to effect a peaceful resolution.
Similarly, a routine traffic stop can result in an
unexpected armed confrontation. At times like
these, an officer needs the protection provided by
body armor.

Logic dictates the routine use of body armor.
Still there are those who do not wear it
regularly, often in spite of departmental
regulations to do so. Those who forsake the
protection of armor constantly expose themselves
to unnecessary pain and suffering or even death.
They also fail to consider the potential impact of
their actions on their families, who must suffer
the anxiety of awaiting the uncertain outcome of
surgery, the burden of caring for the injured or
permanently disabled officer in the home, or--
worse--the anguish of the officer's death and the
challenges of raising a family alone.

In addition to logic and the consideration of
loved ones, case studies and statistics also
support the importance of the routine use of body
armor. As part of the Uniform Crime Reports, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) publishes
its annual report Law Enforcement Officers Killed
and Assaulted (LEOKA), which contains detailed
analysis of the situations and circumstances
surrounding assaults on law enforcement officers--
a "must read" for all law enforcement personnel.

Ask yourself the following question: "If I could
do something that would increase my chances of
surviving a shooting incident by 14 times, would I
do it?" If the answer is "Yes," then you should
wear your body armor every time you are on duty.
The 1994 edition of the LEOKA report contains a
summary of an FBI study that demonstrates that the
risk of sustaining a fatal injury for officers who
do not routinely wear body armor is 14 times
greater than for officers who do. (A copy of the
report summary is included in appendix C of this
guide.) This information alone should be
sufficient to persuade even the least cautious
individual about the benefits of the routine use
of body armor.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) believes
that it is in the best interest of all police
departments to promote the full-time use of body
armor. Aside from armor sparing officers and their
families pain and suffering, the economic impact
on a department when an officer is killed in the
line of duty is staggering.

The following statistics illustrate the importance
of wearing body armor to the entire law
enforcement community and beyond. Since 1973 and
as of January 1, 1998, a total of 2,150 "saves"
have been attributed to the use of body armor.
Fifty-eight percent of these saves were connected
with felonious assaults and 42 percent with
accidents (e.g., vehicular). According to the
International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP)/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club [registered
trademark], the estimated cost of an officer's
death is $1.3 million. This figure is based on
funeral expenses, death and pension benefits, and
the cost to a department to hire and train a
replacement officer.

In 1976, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits
(PSOB) Act (42 U.S.C. 3796, et. seq.) was enacted
into law by Congress to assist the families of
State and local law enforcement officers and
firefighters killed or permanently disabled in the
line of duty. The families of these officers slain
on or after September 29, 1976 were eligible to
receive a $50,000 death benefit payment. In 1984,
families of Federal law enforcement officers and
firefighters killed or disabled in the line of
duty were also made eligible. The benefit was
increased to $100,000 in 1988, with a provision
that this amount would be adjusted each October 1
to reflect the percentage of increase in the
Consumer Price Index. For fiscal year (FY) 1998,
the amount was $141,556. Since 1977, the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), which administers this
program, has received an average of 275 claims
each year. In FY 1997, the PSOB program paid out a
total of $23,590,000 in death and disability
benefits to qualifying survivors under this
program. [9]

In addition to the Federal PSOB program, many
States also have benefits available to the
survivors; however, each State varies as to the
benefits they provide. Among the various benefits
available are a one-time death benefit, a pension
payment, waiver of property taxes, tuition-free
education, and continuation of health care
coverage for surviving children and/or spouses.

Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS), an
organization dedicated to assisting and providing
resources to the families of slain officers, has
compiled information on benefits available to law
enforcement survivors in all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Information
is updated on an ongoing basis. This information
includes benefits sources and contact information.
Information on how to contact COPS is included in
the Resource List (appendix A) at the end of this
publication.

The Threat

The current generation of body armor was developed
specifically to protect against injury from
assault with handguns. A review of the statistics
concerning weapons confiscated nationwide during
the period from 1964 to 1974 identified the .38
caliber handgun, firing bullets at a velocity of
800 ft/s, as the most common weapon threat to
officers. In fact, .38 caliber and smaller
handguns accounted for more than 85 percent of the
confiscated weapons. Since the introduction of
body armor in the mid-1970s, a review of the Law
Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report
continues to support the fact that the most common
threat faced by law enforcement officers is
handgun assaults. However, trends indicate that
the 9mm semiautomatic pistol has surpassed the .38
caliber handgun as the most common threat (see
exhibit 2).

When an individual is hit by a bullet, the extent
of the injury sustained depends on where the
bullet strikes the body and the path or trajectory
of the bullet into or through the body. Injury to
the vital organs is most often fatal. Thus, the
armor's primary and most obvious purpose is to
prevent a bullet from penetrating the torso.

In the case of hard armor, such as metal, rigid
reinforced plastic, or ceramic materials, it is
possible to use armor of such a thickness that it
does not appreciably deform from the bullet
impact. If, however, the armor that covers the
torso deforms from the bullet impact, the surface
of the armor against the body at the point of
impact will be forced against or into the skin and
flesh. Unlike a penetrating wound, in which the
skin is broken and the bullet tears through the
body, the deformation of armor from bullet impact
results in blunt trauma. This type of
nonpenetrating injury can cause severe contusions
(bruises) or internal damage and can even result
in death. As a result, this NIJ standard also
evaluates the capabilities of the armor to prevent
injury from blunt trauma.

Simply speaking, the design of ballistic-resistant
armor requires identifying the threat, selecting a
material or combination of materials that will
resist that threat, and determining the number of
layers of material necessary to prevent both
penetration and blunt trauma injury. In designing
armor, the armor's final weight is an important
factor in the selection of the ballistic-resistant
material or materials to be used. The goal is to
design the lightest possible unit that achieves
the desired protection while still providing
comfort and not restricting movement.

The degree of threat to armor from handguns
depends on many factors: caliber, bullet
configuration and composition (e.g., lead
roundnose, jacketed hollow-point, full metal
jacketed, armor piercing), weight, and impact
velocity. Thus, armor that defeats a specific
projectile at one impact velocity may not defeat
the same caliber projectile at a higher velocity
or of a different composition or configuration.

On the whole, a continuous range of threat levels
undoubtedly exists for the different weapon and
ammunition combinations available. As with
clothing, which allows selection from a limited
range of garment type and weight depending on
climate and season, it has proven satisfactory to
establish six armor types (protection level
classifications) that enable the selection of
armor to protect against most common threats--
including sporting and armor-piercing rifle
bullets.

All departments should periodically review the
information used to select the level of protection
(armor type classification) when the armor was
purchased. Evaluate changes in service weapons or
ammunition with respect to the type of armor used
by officers. Equally important are changes in the
weapons or ammunition of the local criminal
population. If changes have occurred and increased
the threat to the officers, the department should
consider upgrading its armor.

The details of this armor classification and
selection are discussed in detail in chapter 5 and
6. For the moment, it is sufficient to recognize
the importance of being realistic in assessing the
firearm threat to officers. The weight and bulk of
body armor can increase significantly as greater
threat protection is demanded; both of these
factors can discourage full-time use of body
armor.

Not Just Bullets

The original NIJ body armor effort focused solely
on the urgent need to protect law enforcement
personnel from handgun assault. As with most new
technology, body armor has proven useful in ways
not thought of when first put into service. The
same properties that provide ballistic protection-
-resistance to penetration and blunt trauma--when
combined with abrasion resistance have also saved
many officers from serious physical injury in
vehicular accidents.

In one incident, during the course of a routine
patrol, an officer was negotiating a sweeping
right-hand curve at a high rate of speed when the
vehicle ran off the edge of the pavement. As the
vehicle was brought back onto the pavement, the
officer lost control. After fishtailing several
times, the vehicle became airborne and crashed
head on into a rocky hillside. The officer
suffered a fractured sternum, sprained right
thumb, possible concussion, and pain in the area
of the neck. There is every reason to believe that
the body armor the officer was wearing saved the
officer's life.

In another incident, an officer in a patrol car
was following a slow-moving vehicle and was struck
from behind by a vehicle traveling at
approximately 60 mph. Again, body armor was
credited with preventing serious injury.

Medical experts have concluded that body armor
definitely mitigates injury in head-on collisions
when the driver is thrown against the steering
wheel, particularly when the seat belt is
fastened. The development of new safety-related
technologies in vehicles, such as air bags, may
lessen the severity of injuries routinely
sustained in these types of accidents

Officers assigned to motorcycle duty are
especially vulnerable to injury in vehicular
accidents. A member of the California Highway
Patrol was traveling at approximately 45 mph when
he heard the sound of a vehicle approaching
rapidly from the rear. He was attempting to move
to the right when he was struck by the vehicle in
the left rear. The motorcycle spun
counterclockwise. He was thrown from the
motorcycle, landing on his back and sliding on the
pavement for approximately 100 feet before coming
to rest. He sustained only minor injuries to his
right elbow and right leg. This convincing example
demonstrates the nonballistic protection that body
armor can offer. In addition, body armor has also
protected numerous officers from injury from
physical assault with 2 by 4's, baseball bats, and
other rigid objects.

It should be noted that concealable body armor is
potentially vulnerable to knife attack; hence, all
officers should exercise due caution when
confronted with these situations. However,
numerous incidents have been documented in which
body armor lessened injury. Several manufacturers
currently market vests they claim offer protection
against knife attacks, although most of these
vests carry warnings indicating that they do not
provide protection against all sharp-edged and
pointed threats, just as a ballistic-resistant
vest cannot be totally bulletproof.

2,000-Plus Reasons

The first recorded incident of a U.S. law
enforcement officer's life being saved as a result
of wearing a concealable ballistic vest occurred
May 17, 1973, in Detroit, Michigan. Police Officer
Ron Jagielski, along with several other officers,
was working on a plainclothes assignment involving
narcotics trafficking. Ready to enter the
residence under surveillance and make the bust,
Jagielski was hit in the chest when a bullet
pierced the building's front door. A .38 caliber
special bullet was later found embedded in his
ballistic vest, just below the area of his heart.
Had it not been for the protection afforded by the
body armor, Jagielski would surely have suffered a
fatal injury.

Nearly a quarter-century later, on January 3,
1997, Deputy Henry Huff became the 2,000th law
enforcement official to be placed on the
IACP/DuPont list of those saved by concealable
body armor. A member of the Walton County,
Georgia, Sheriff's Office, Huff was shot at
pointblank range during a traffic stop by a
16-year-old male armed with a 9mm weapon. The
surveillance camera in Huff's squad car caught the
entire incident on videotape. Despite being shot
twice in the chest, Huff was spared from serious
injury. He has since returned to duty.

In 1987, a study by DuPont found that while most
police officers recognized the dangers of their
jobs and 65 percent of those surveyed owned body
armor, only 15 to 20 percent actually used it. The
reasons given for not wearing body armor ranged
from legitimate concerns such as comfort and
weight, to misconceptions about an officer's
ability to survive blunt trauma caused by a bullet
that has been stopped by a vest.

In that same year (1987), the International
Association of Chiefs of Police Board of Officers
authorized the formation of the IACP/DuPont Kevlar
Survivors' Club [registered trademark]. The
objectives of this club are to: 

o Reduce death and disability by encouraging the
increased wear of personal body armor through
documentation of the armor's effectiveness.

o Recognize those individuals who, as a result of
wearing personal body armor, have survived a
life-threatening incident.

o Serve the law enforcement community by
collecting these important data and sharing
valuable information related to these survivor
incidents.

By publishing the accounts of saves in Police
Chief magazine and engaging in other supportive
efforts, the Survivors' Club has helped educate
law enforcement officers about the benefits of
always wearing body armor. Many departments now
routinely provide body armor and mandate its wear
while officers are on duty. In some locations,
concerned citizens have undertaken fundraising
activities to purchase body armor for local law
enforcement officers.

The dramatic increase in the general acceptance of
body armor can be shown by a 1993 Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of law enforcement
agencies that revealed that 539 of the 661
agencies surveyed (81.5 percent) either provide
body armor or cash allowances to purchase body
armor to all of their uniformed patrol officers.
[10] In addition, 196 (or 29.7 percent) of those
agencies had a mandatory wear policy. In
comparison, the same survey conducted by BJS in
1987 indicated that only 28 percent of agencies
surveyed provided armor or a cash allowance to
purchase armor.[11] Also, according to the 1993
BJS survey, a third of all local police
departments, including half of those serving a
population of 1 million or more, required all
regular field officers to wear body armor while on
duty. Departments with such a requirement employed
41 percent of all local police officers in 1993,
compared to 32 percent in 1990, the survey found.

------------------------------

4. Body Armor Construction

How Does Body Armor Work? 

When a handgun bullet strikes body armor, it is
caught in a "web" of very strong fibers. These
fibers absorb and disperse the impact energy that
is transmitted to the vest from the bullet,
causing the bullet to deform or "mushroom."
Additional energy is absorbed by each successive
layer of material in the vest, until such time as
the bullet has been stopped.

Because the fibers work together both in the
individual layer and with other layers of material
in the vest, a large area of the garment becomes
involved in preventing the bullet from
penetrating. This also helps in dissipating the
forces which can cause nonpenetrating injuries
(what is commonly referred to as "blunt trauma")
to internal organs. Unfortunately, at this time no
material exists that would allow a vest to be
constructed from a single ply of material.

Currently, today's modern generation of
concealable body armor can provide protection in a
variety of levels designed to defeat most common
low- and medium-energy handgun rounds. Body armor
designed to defeat rifle fire is of either
semirigid or rigid construction, typically
incorporating hard materials such as ceramics and
metals. Because of its weight and bulkiness, it is
impractical for routine use by uniformed patrol
officers and is reserved for use in tactical
situations where it is worn externally for short
periods of time when confronted with higher level
threats.

Methods of Construction 

Typically, concealable body armor is constructed
of multiple layers of ballistic fabric or other
ballistic-resistant materials, assembled into the
"ballistic panel." The ballistic panel is then
inserted into the "carrier," which is constructed
of conventional garment fabrics such as nylon or
cotton. The ballistic panel may be permanently
sewn into the carrier or may be removable.
Although the overall finished product looks
relatively simple in construction, the ballistic
panel is very complex.

Ballistic fabric is available from a number of
manufacturers in various styles and compositions,
each type having unique ballistic-resistant
properties. The body armor manufacturer may
construct a given model of ballistic panel from a
single fabric style or from two or more styles in
combination. The location and number of layers of
each style within the multiple-layer ballistic
panel influence the overall ballistic performance
of the panel. In addition, some manufacturers coat
the ballistic fabric with various materials. For
example, the manufacturer may add a layer of
nonballistic material for the sole purpose of
increasing blunt trauma protection. Even
composites of two or more different ballistic
materials are available. As a consequence, it is
impossible to compare one product with another
based solely on the number of fabric layers in the
ballistic panel. 

The manner in which the ballistic panels are
assembled into a single unit also differs from one
manufacturer to another. In some cases, the
multiple layers are bias stitched around the
entire edge of the panel; in others, the layers
are tack stitched together at several locations.
Some manufacturers assemble the fabrics with a
number of rows of vertical or horizontal
stitching; some may even quilt the entire
ballistic panel. No evidence exists that stitching
impairs the ballistic-resistant properties of a
panel. Instead, stitching tends to improve the
overall performance, especially in cases of blunt
trauma, depending upon the type of fabric used.

The differences between ballistic panels in
various manufacturers' products result from
individual design concepts meant to achieve a
given level of ballistic performance with minimum
weight and maximum comfort or wearability. If
armor has been demonstrated to provide the desired
level of protection in accordance with the NIJ
standard, the user should not be concerned with
the design, but should look for proper fit and
comfort.

Body armor intended for routine use is most often
designed to be worn beneath the normal uniform
shirt. Again, manufacturers tend to design
different methods of attaching armor to the body.
Hook-and-pile fasteners are common, as are "D"
ring tightening straps. With the exception of
metal fasteners of any type (which can deflect a
bullet on impact and pose a hazard), the method of
attachment is a matter of personal preference.

Since 1987, the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) has tested
more than 2,300 models of body armor. Of these,
more than 1,400 comply with the requirements of
the National Institute of Justice Standard and are
listed in the Police Body Armor Consumer Product
List (CPL), available from NLECTC. The number of
body armor configurations available (including
armor designed specifically for female officers)
makes it possible for an officer to find
comfortable armor suitable for routine use,
consistent with his or her personal taste in
appearance.

Materials Used

Note: The following information has been prepared
from product literature supplied by the
manufacturer. All product descriptions and
performance claims are the manufacturer's and do
not represent findings or endorsement of these
claims by the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice; Office of Law Enforcement
Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce; or Aspen
Systems Corporation.

Several manufacturers have been involved in
developing and refining materials used in body
armor. DuPont has developed law enforcement
protection products for more than 25 years. 

Its Kevlar [registered trademark] brand fiber,
first developed in 1965, was the first material
identified for use in the modern generation of
concealable body armor. Kevlar [registered
trademark] is a manmade organic fiber, with a
combination of properties allowing for high
strength with low weight, high chemical
resistance, and high cut resistance. Kevlar
[registered trademark] is also flame resistant;
does not melt, soften, or flow; and the fiber is
unaffected by immersion in water (see the wet
testing discussion in chapter 5).

Kevlar [registered trademark] 29, introduced in
the early 1970s, was the first generation of
bullet-resistant fibers developed by DuPont and
helped to make the production of flexible,
concealable body armor practical for the first
time. In 1988, DuPont introduced the second
generation of Kevlar [registered trademark] fiber,
known as Kevlar [registered trademark] 129.
According to DuPont, this fabric offered increased
ballistic protection capabilities against
high-energy rounds such as the 9mm FMJ. In 1995,
Kevlar [registered trademark] Correctional
[trademark] was introduced, which provides
puncture-resistant technology to both law
enforcement and correctional officers against
puncture-type threats.

The newest addition to the Kevlar [registered
trademark] line is Kevlar [registered trademark]
Protera, which DuPont made available in 1996.
DuPont contends that the Kevlar [registered
trademark] Protera is a high-performance fabric
that allows lighter weight, more flexibility, and
greater ballistic protection in a vest design due
to the molecular structure of the fiber. Its
tensile strength and energy-absorbing capabilities
have been increased by the development of a new
spinning process. 

Spectra [registered trademark] fiber, manufactured
by AlliedSignal, is an ultra-high-strength
polyethylene fiber. Ultra high molecular weight
polyethylene is dissolved in a solvent and spun
through a series of small orifices, called
spinnerets. This solution is solidified by
cooling, and the cooled fiber has a gel-like
appearance. The Spectra [registered trademark]
fiber is then used to make Spectra
Shield[registered trademark] composite. A layer of
Spectra Shield [registered trademark] composite
consists of two unidirectional layers of Spectra
[registered trademark] fiber, arranged to cross
each other at 0- and 90-degree angles and held in
place by a flexible resin. Both the fiber and
resin layers are sealed between two thin sheets of
polyethylene film, which is similar in appearance
to plastic food wrap. According to AlliedSignal,
the resulting nonwoven fabric is incredibly
strong, lightweight, and has excellent ballistic
protection capabilities. Spectra Shield
[registered trademark] is made in a variety of
styles for use in both concealable and hard armor
applications.

AlliedSignal also uses the Shield Technology
process to manufacture another type of shield
composite called Gold Shield [registered
trademark]. Gold Shield [registered trademark] is
manufactured using aramid fibers in place of the
Spectra fiber. Gold Shield [registered trademark]
is currently made in three types: Gold Shield
[registered trademark] LCR and GoldFlex
[registered trademark], which are used in
concealable body armor; and Gold Shield
[registered trademark] PCR, which is used in the
manufacture of hard armor, such as plates and
helmets.

Another manufacturer, Akzo Nobel, has developed
various forms of its aramid fiber TWARON
[registered trademark] for body armor. According
to Akzo Nobel, this fiber uses 1,000 or more
finely spun single filaments that act as an energy
sponge, absorbing a bullet's impact and quickly
dissipating its energy through engaged and
adjacent fibers. Because more filaments are used,
the impact is dispersed more quickly. Akzo claims
their patented Microfilament technology allows
maximum energy absorption at minimum weights while
enhancing comfort and flexibility.

Akzo Nobel maintains that the use of TWARON
[registered trademark] in body armor significantly
reduces the overall weight of the finished
product, thus making vests more comfortable. Akzo
also contends that stitching panels made from
layers of TWARON [registered trademark] is largely
unnecessary, and that the lack of stitching
contributes to a lighter weight and softer feel
while affording the same protection.

Another fiber used to manufacture body armor is
Dyneema [registered trademark]. Originated in the
Netherlands, Dyneema [registered trademark] has an
extremely high strength-to-weight ratio (a
1-mm-diameter rope of Dyneema can bear up to a
240-kg load), is light enough that it can float on
water, and has high energy absorption
characteristics.

All fibers and materials noted in this chapter
have a wide variety of uses in addition to
ballistic garments. They are used for other types
of protective clothing and equipment (e.g.,
bicycle and skateboarding helmets), marine and
aircraft components, industrial cables, and
recreational equipment such as fishing rods and
tennis rackets. The materials described are some
of the most commonly used; other materials (e.g.,
ballistic nylon) can also be used.

The introduction of newer, high-performance fibers
has dramatically decreased the weight and bulk of
today's body armor and increased its comfort and
wearability. It can be anticipated that newer
materials will be developed and in conjunction
with further advances in ballistic vest design,
technology will continue to enhance the
performance and comfort of tomorrow's body armor.

------------------------------

5. The NIJ Standard

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Standard
for the Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor
was developed by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's (NIST's) Office of Law
Enforcement Standards (OLES) and issued by NIJ as
a voluntary national standard. This is a
performance rather than a design standard, as are
most OLES standards. Performance standards clearly
specify a minimum satisfactory level of
performance for each attribute that is critical to
the equipment's intended use. In contrast, design
standards specify the manner in which an item of
equipment must be manufactured. Performance
standards encourage design innovation and the use
of advanced technology, addressing critical
requirements only and not such attributes as
comfort, color, or style--which are generally
matters of user perception or preference.

The administrative procedures for NIJ's body armor
compliance-testing program, which is administered
by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center (NLECTC), are designed to ensure
the integrity of the test results. A series of
pre- and post-test checks and balances ensure the
laboratory's conformance to the NIJ testing
procedure. When a manufacturer elects to have a
model of armor tested, the test samples are
delivered to NLECTC, where the labels and
workmanship are inspected before the samples are
given to an independent laboratory for testing. A
2-week period is allocated to accomplish the
control function before the scheduled testing
date. Following testing, the samples are returned
to NLECTC, where test results are verified. The
tested samples are then placed in archival
storage.

The NIJ body armor testing program relies on
voluntary participation by manufacturers. However,
many police departments require that armor be
tested by NLECTC and found in compliance with the
NIJ standard before they will purchase the armor.
As a result, most manufacturers design their armor
to comply with the standard and have each model
tested for compliance by NLECTC. Whenever NIJ
develops a new standard, NLECTC distributes the
revision to industry representatives for their
comments.

Developing the Standard

The selection of body armor has become
increasingly complex as manufacturers have
developed numerous models and designs, the variety
of ballistic fabric styles has increased, and the
protection requirements of police agencies have
changed. All of these factors have necessitated
changes in the NIJ body armor standard. The
current edition, which was issued in April 1987,
[12] is the third revision of the 1972 base
document.

The first standard (.00). NIJ's first standard,
0101.00, Ballistic Resistance of Police Body
Armor, was published in March 1972 in response to
the law enforcement community's request for a
benchmark against which to measure competing
manufacturer claims. This first standard provided
requirements only for resistance to actual
penetration of the vest by a bullet and defined
only three levels of protection from various
threats. The issue of whether the armor could
prevent injury from blunt trauma was not
addressed.

The next step (.01). In 1975, NIJ requested that
the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, (LESL),
the predecessor to OLES, begin revision of the .00
standard to take into account contemporary
research on blunt trauma and the degradation of
armor when wet. A revised standard was published
in December 1978 as STD-0101.01 [13] to introduce
the backface signature test for blunt trauma and
wet testing.

At approximately the same time, the law
enforcement community asked NIJ to establish an
equipment testing program to provide independent
verification of body armor compliance to the NIJ
standard. NIJ entered into a cooperative agreement
with the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) to conduct the testing. The first
results were published in 1978. Since then, the
models (and the names of their manufacturers) that
pass compliance testing have been published in the
Police Body Armor Consumer Product List (CPL),
periodically published by NLECTC. NLECTC also
publishes other documents and guides, such as this
one, to help police departments select and procure
body armor.

Responding to change (.02). In March 1985, NIJ
amended the standard to take into account armors'
susceptibility to angle shots and multishot
assaults. [14]

The current standard (.03). The current NIJ
standard, 0101.03, published in April 1987,
clarified labeling requirements, acceptance
criteria, and backface signature measurement
procedures. NIJ also strengthened its
administrative procedures for archiving models.

The future. Since the introduction of the .03
standard, there have been considerable advances in
body armor materials, design technology, threats,
and test methods and procedures. Future revisions
of the standard will incorporate these changes to
ensure the highest levels of safety. The
development of test methods to verify the ongoing
performance of body armor units currently in use
will also be addressed.

NIJ's policy on body armor has always been that
preserving the life of the police officer is the
sole criterion on which to judge body armor
effectiveness. At present, an officer may select a
garment that corresponds to an appropriate threat
level and be confident that armor in compliance
with NIJ's standard will defeat the stated threat
level.

Armor Classification

NIJ Standard-0101.03 establishes six formal armor
classification types, as well as a seventh special
type, as follows:

Type I (.22 LR; .38 Special). This armor protects
against .22 Long Rifle High-Velocity lead bullets,
with nominal masses of 2.6 g (40 gr), impacting at
a velocity of 320 m/s (1,050 ft/s) or less, and
against .38 Special roundnose lead bullets, with
nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr), impacting at a
velocity of 259 m/s (850 ft/s) or less. It also
provides protection against most other .25 and .32
caliber handgun rounds. 

Type I body armor is light. This is the minimum
level of protection every officer should have, and
the armor should be routinely worn at all times
while on duty. Type I body armor was the armor
issued during the NIJ demonstration project in the
mid-1970s. Most agencies today, however, because
of increasing threats, opt for a higher level of
protection.

Type II-A (Lower Velocity .357 Magnum; 9mm). This
armor protects against .357 Magnum jacketed
soft-point bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g
(158 gr), impacting at a velocity of 381 m/s
(1,250 ft/s) or less, and against 9mm full-metal
jacketed bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g
(124 gr), impacting at a velocity of 332 m/s
(1,090 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection
against such threats as .45 Auto., .38 Special +P,
and some other factory loads in caliber .357
Magnum and 9mm, as well as the Type I threats.

Type II-A body armor is well suited for full-time
use by police departments, particularly those
seeking protection for their officers from lower
velocity .357 Magnum and 9mm ammunition.

Type II (Higher Velocity .357 Magnum; 9mm). This
armor protects against .357 Magnum jacketed
soft-point bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g
(158 gr), impacting at a velocity of 425 m/s
(1,395 ft/s) or less, and against 9mm
full-jacketed bullets, with nominal velocities of
358 m/s (1,175 ft/s). It also protects against
most other factory loads in caliber .357 Magnum
and 9mm, as well as the Type I and II-A threats.

Type II body armor is heavier and more bulky than
either Types I or II-A. It is worn full time by
officers seeking protection against higher
velocity .357 Magnum and 9mm ammunition.

Type III-A (.44 Magnum; Submachine Gun 9mm). This
armor protects against .44 Magnum, lead
semi-wadcutter bullets with gas checks, nominal
masses of 15.55 g (240 gr), impacting at a
velocity of 426 m/s (1,400 ft/s) or less, and
against 9mm full-metal jacketed bullets, with
nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr), impacting at a
velocity of 426 m/s (1,400 ft/s) or less. It also
provides protection against most handgun threats,
as well as the Type I, II-A, and II threats.

Type III-A body armor provides the highest level
of protection currently available from concealable
body armor and is generally suitable for routine
wear in many situations. However, departments
located in hot, humid climates may need to
evaluate the use of Type III-A armor carefully.

Type III (high-powered rifle). This armor,
normally of hard or semirigid construction,
protects against 7.62mm full-metal jacketed
bullets (U.S. military designation M80), with
nominal masses of 9.7 g (150 gr), impacting at a
velocity of 838 m/s (2,750 ft/s) or less. It also
provides protection against threats such as 223
Remington (5.56mm FMJ), 30 Carbine FMJ, and
12-gauge rifled slug, as well as the Type I
through III-A threats.

Type III body armor is clearly intended only for
tactical situations when the threat warrants such
protection, such as barricade confrontations
involving sporting rifles. 

Type IV (armor-piercing rifle). This armor
protects against .30-06 caliber armor-piercing
bullets (U.S. military designation APM2), with
nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr) impacting at a
velocity of 868 m/s (2,850 ft/s) or less. It also
provides at least single-hit protection against
the Type I through III threats.

Type IV body armor provides the highest level of
protection currently available. Because this armor
is intended to resist "armor piercing" bullets, it
often uses ceramic materials. Such materials are
brittle in nature and may provide only single-shot
protection, since the ceramic tends to break up
when struck. As with Type III armor, Type IV armor
is clearly intended only for tactical situations
when the threat warrants such protection.

Special type. A purchaser who has a special
requirement for a level of protection other than
one of the above standard threat levels should
specify the exact test rounds and minimum impact
velocities to be used and indicate that this
standard shall govern in all other respects.

Model and Style Designation 

A manufacturer can, and frequently does, use
identical ballistic panel construction to produce
several different configurations of armor, such as
an undergarment or an outerwear jacket used by
plainclothes officers (e.g., denim jacket,
simulated down vest), each of which provides the
same level of ballistic protection.

For the purposes of the NLECTC body armor
compliance procedures, the following definitions
have been adopted:

Body armor model. A manufacturer designation
(name, number, or other description) that serves
to uniquely identify a specific configuration of
body armor based upon the details of the ballistic
panel construction and the manner in which the
armor is held in place upon the torso. Separate
model designations must be assigned to armor
designed to fit the female and male torso.

Body armor style. A manufacturer designation
(name, number, or other description) that is used
to distinguish between different configurations of
body armor product line, each of which is a minor
stylistic variation of the same model of ballistic
panel but does not have the potential to
negatively affect the originally tested ballistic
performance level of that model.

The distinctions between body armor model and
style were established to eliminate the need to
retest a given body armor model for compliance
with the NIJ standard each time a manufacturer
incorporates the model into a different style of
armor.

The intent of the NIJ program is to ensure that
armor purchased for use by law enforcement
personnel provides the rated level of protection.
However, NIJ recognizes that individual
departments often desire minor modifications to an
armor model that do not have the potential to
reduce the level of protection of the armor model.
There are a number of variations in configuration
that a manufacturer can make to a model without
the necessity of assigning a new model number to
the modified units. These include:

1)--Changes in color of the carrier material.

2)--Changes in the placement of pockets or of
straps designed to carry police equipment.

3)--Changes in fabric used to encase ballistic
panels; provided, however, that if the fabric used
in the model tested for compliance was waterproof,
the replacement fabric must exhibit equal or
improved resistance to water.

4)--Changes in the fabric of the carrier material;
provided, however, that if any portion of the
carrier of the sample tested for compliance
contained elastic materials such as rubber or foam
rubber, the replacement fabric must provide an
equivalent amount and thickness of such material
to maintain the original energy absorption.

5)--Changes in the perimeter shape of the
ballistic panels; including the shape and size of
neck and arm openings, and extending or reducing
the overall width of the ballistic panels to
increase, decrease, or eliminate overlap of the
ballistic panels.

6)--Changes to the kind, style, or location of
fabric attachment and adjustment mechanisms;
provided however, that such changes do not
incorporate hard materials that could potentially
be a ricochet hazard.

7)--Changing from a removable panel carrier to one
in which the ballistic panel is not removable.

The manufacturer must assign a new model number
and submit the new model for compliance testing if
any of the following modifications are made to a
model on the CPL:

1)--The addition or elimination of any layers of
ballistic-resistant materials of the ballistic
panel resulting in a different number of total
layers in the panel.

2)--For vests consisting of multiple styles or
types of materials, any alteration or changes to
the sequence in which the layers are arranged or
configured within the ballistic panel. Changes,
unless specifically authorized by NIJ, include but
are not limited to:

o Changes in the style (e.g., base yarn, weave
design and count, fiber area, weight, and/or resin
composition) of woven and nonwoven fabric are
considered changes in the material.

o Fabrics woven from yarn produced using fibers
manufactured by various chemical suppliers are
considered to be different materials.

o Laminates made from different chemical
compositions (i.e., different chemical abstract --
--service numbers) are considered to be different
materials.

o Changes in the treatment of materials (e.g.,
waterproofed versus nonwaterproofed or impregnated
versus nonimpregnated or alternate impregnation
processes) constitutes the use of different
materials.

3)--Any change in the manner in which the
ballistic panel is assembled; (e.g., the addition
or elimination of stitching and changes in stitch
density or material).

4)--Modifying an approved side-opening (solid
front/back panels) concealable vest to create a
front- or back-opening (commonly referred to as
"tactical" or "detective" style) vest.

5)--Changing from a permanent/nonremovable carrier
to a removable ballistic carrier.

6)--Changes to the closure mechanism (including
the type or location, interior flaps or panels
associated with the mechanism and any exterior
cover device) of front- or back-opening armor
configurations.

7)--Changing from a snug-fitting carrier to one
that allows too much movement of the ballistic
panel (e.g., ballistic panel sized to fit 38-inch
chest inserted in a size-40 carrier).

Modifications not specifically addressed in these
guidelines will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis and a determination rendered by NIJ. In all
cases, the originally tested and archived vest
will serve as the benchmark to determine if a
change has occurred.

Once a model of armor has been tested and
approved, and a letter of compliance is issued by
the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center (NLECTC), it is the
responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that
all subsequent production units sold to law
enforcement agencies or personnel labeled as being
in compliance with NIJ Standard-0101.03 are
constructed identically to the samples of the
model submitted to NLECTC for testing and found to
comply with the requirements of the standard.

Requirements

The performance requirements of NIJ Standard-
0101.03, which were developed with the active
participation of body armor manufacturers, ensure
that each armor type will provide a well-defined
minimum level of ballistic protection.

Exhibit 3, reproduced from the standard,
identifies the specific bullets and impact
velocities that each armor type must withstand.

Types I, II-A, II, and III-A armor are required to
prevent penetration from the impact of six bullets
at specified velocities and locations for two
types of ammunition. Two of the impacts in each
six-shot sequence must be at a 30 angle.
Furthermore, the deformation of the backing
material (a measure of blunt trauma protection)
must not exceed 44mm (1.73 in). The armor must
meet these requirements while both dry and wet.

Type III armor requirements are identical to those
above, except that only one type of ammunition is
specified, and all six test rounds are fired
perpendicular to the surface of the armor.

Type IV armor is required to resist penetration
from only a single type of ammunition (armor
piercing) and is only required to prevent
penetration from a single perpendicular impact.

In addition to the ballistic requirements, the NIJ
standard requires quality workmanship and
specifies the minimum information that must be
included on the armor's label. 

The maximum allowable deformation of the
clay-backing material was determined through an
extensive series of ballistic gelatin measurements
and experiments conducted by a team of medical
experts. This limit ensures protection from blunt
trauma that arises from an impact occurring over
vital locations. Even this level of protection,
however, does not give an absolute guarantee of
protection against internal injuries.

The rationale for the requirement that armor
resist bullet penetration is obvious. The reasons
for other ballistic requirements may not be
apparent.

Wet testing. Certain ballistic fabrics lose
ballistic-resistant efficiency when wet, but fully
return to normal ballistic efficiency upon drying.
Laboratory tests of non-water-repellent treated
vests soaked in water have shown a reduction in
ballistic efficiency of more than 20 percent
compared to that of dry vests. The cause of this
phenomenon is not known, but it is theorized that
water acts as a lubricant, which allows the bullet
to pass through the fibers more easily.

An officer may confront an armed assailant in the
rain, and body perspiration can also significantly
reduce the ballistic efficiency of untreated
fabrics. Laboratory tests conducted by the U.S.
Army Natick R&D Command, using a mannequin that
simulates human perspiration, verified that vests
will absorb perspiration in amounts comparable to
a vest that has been allowed to drain following
immersion in water. A series of tests was also
conducted by a research team from the Department
of Justice, in which officers wearing untreated
vests were subjected to strenuous exercise on a
hot humid day. The amount of perspiration in the
vests corresponded to the Natick experiments, and
when ballistic tests were conducted a significant
reduction in the efficiency was noted. In view of
this, the NIJ standard requires that a vest
continue to provide the rated level of ballistic
protection when wet.

The vast majority of body armor manufactured today
uses materials that (1) are inherently waterproof
or are treated with water repellants; (2) have a
permanent water-repellant covering (such as
ripstop nylon); or (3) both. However, the standard
requires wet testing to ensure that these vests
still provide adequate protection in situations in
which they are exposed to moisture.

Those purchasing body armor should be aware that
some manufacturers offer models that are
supposedly identical in construction to NIJ-tested
and -approved models, except that they do not have
water-repellant treatment. NIJ considers the
removal or alteration of water-repellant treatment
to be a change in the design of the vest. NIJ does
not, under any circumstances, recognize any model
that "partially" complies with the standard.

Angle shots. All Type I through Type III-A body
armors are required to resist the penetration of
bullets striking at an angle to the surface,
because the probability of being hit exactly
perpendicular to the surface is low. Certain
fabrics are less efficient ballistically by as
much as 20 percent when a bullet strikes at an
angle. Armor must provide the rated level of
protection regardless of the angle of impact.

Performance Testing

As a service to law enforcement and manufacturers,
NIJ's body armor compliance testing program tests
body armor using independent testing laboratories
to determine compliance with the requirements of
NIJ Standard-0101.03. The models that comply with
the requirements of this NIJ standard are added to
its Police Body Armor Consumer Product List (CPL),
which is widely distributed to law enforcement
agencies as a procurement aid.

Exhibit 4, from NIJ Standard-0101.03, shows the
test setup for ballistic testing of police body
armor. The chronograph measures the bullet
velocity to ensure that each test round is within
the range required by the standard. The armor
being tested is mounted on a clay-backing material
whose consistency is controlled.

Exhibit 5, also from NIJ Standard-0101.03, shows
the general locations of points of impact for each
round fired in the six-shot sequence for each type
of ammunition specified in exhibit 3 for the type
of armor being tested. The deformation of the clay
behind the impact of the first shot (location 1)
is measured to determine compliance with the blunt
trauma requirement. Following the deformation
measurement, the armor is repositioned on the clay
and is not smoothed or otherwise disturbed for the
remaining five bullet impacts, two of which
(locations 5 and 6) are fired at an angle of 30
degrees to the armor surface. The armor is not
disturbed during the last five firings in order to
evaluate protection from multiple hits. 

The armor is tested both while dry and after being
sprayed with a measured quantity of water for 3
minutes on each side before being mounted on the
clay. Both the front and back of the armor are
tested, and, if present, tests are conducted on
groin and coccyx (end of spine) protection panels.

The clay-backing material must be properly
conditioned and must meet the requirements
specified in the standard, as the only current
means of relating deformation to blunt trauma
protection. Some departments attempt to conduct
their own tests using a variety of backing
materials, including thick stacks of newspapers,
wood, or even steel plates. This practice should
be avoided, for the bullet interacts differently
with these materials than with the clay-backing
material. Furthermore, other backing materials can
be unsafe. In several cases, bullets have bounced
back and injured the officer shooting at the
armor.

V50 Testing 

V50 ballistic limit testing is a statistical test
developed by the U.S. military to evaluate hard
armor of homogenous construction used to protect
vehicles. Many body armor manufacturers use a
modified form of the military V50 testing as a
design tool to develop and assess new body armor
designs. V50 testing as used by body armor
manufacturers experimentally identifies a velocity
at which a specific projectile has a 50-percent
chance of penetrating the armor being tested.

In this form of testing, the armor is mounted on
the clay-backing material, and specified bullets
are fired to determine the velocities at which the
bullets do and do not penetrate the armor. A
sufficient number of bullets are fired at various
velocities to obtain groups of five nonpenetrating
bullets and five penetrating bullets, with a
velocity range of no more than 38 m/s (125 ft/s)
between the lowest velocity nonpenetrating bullet
and the highest velocity penetrating bullet. The
V50 ballistic limit is calculated as the average
velocity of the 10 bullets.

V50 ballistic limit testing allows manufacturers
to evaluate various designs against one another to
optimize their design for a specific type of body
armor. A trend has emerged in which manufacturers
publish V50 test data and also put V50 test
information on the labels of some of their body
armor.

V50 ballistic limit testing is a useful and
informative statistical tool for evaluating
certain characteristics of armor. In addition to
being helpful during the design phase of armor
development, it may also have the potential for
being a valuable tool in evaluating armor's
degradation over time. However, it does not
evaluate the level of protection afforded against
blunt trauma, nor is a uniform standard for V50
ballistic limit testing used by all manufacturers.
Therefore, it is not suited for use in a
performance standard.

ISO 9000

Several armor manufacturers advertise that their
companies have obtained ISO 9000 certification.
Some confusion exists in the law enforcement
community as to what this certification means and
its relationship to NIJ compliance testing. The
following explains ISO 9000 and its significance
to purchasers.

ISO stands for the International Organization for
Standardization. Founded in 1946, its charter
calls for it to provide harmonized standards for
manufacturing quality that are to be used
throughout the world. Through the years, ISO's
role has expanded beyond the quality system into
environmental issues, occupational health and
safety, laboratory accreditations, and conformity
assessment. Approximately 110 countries
participate in ISO standards programs.
International standards are prepared through the
efforts of technical committees, working groups,
and technical advisory groups.

ISO 9000 defines minimum guidelines for quality
management in the manufacturing process. This
voluntary certification process is designed to
provide consistency in the manufacturing process
that companies use. Companies are required to have
a documented quality control system and their
employees must follow these established
procedures. 

The three quality objectives of ISO 9000 are as
follows:

o Achieve and sustain the quality of service so as
to meet customer requirements consistently. 

o Provide assurance to management that intended
quality is achieved and sustained.

o Provide assurance to customers that intended
quality is being achieved and sustained.

ISO 9000 has three levels of certification. The
basic level, ISO 9003, has 16 requirements. The
next level, ISO 9002, requires companies to meet
all ISO 9003 requirements, plus servicing, process
control, and purchasing requirements. The highest
level, ISO 9001, requires companies to meet all
the ISO 9002 requirements, as well as documented
product design control requirements.

It is important to note that the ISO 9000
certification process certifies the quality
control system of companies, not the quality of
their products or service. ISO 9000 certification
does not imply product conformity to any given set
of requirements (such as NIJ Standard-0101.03).
Therefore, a clear and significant distinction
exists between manufacturers that are ISO
certified and whether their products comply with
the NIJ standard. ISO certification addresses the
quality of the manufacturing process used by armor
manufacturers, while the NIJ standard addresses
the performance capabilities of specific models of
armor produced by manufacturers.

Cooperative Efforts Between NLECTC and Industry

To further enhance its mission to support State
and local law enforcement by identifying their
needs, finding expedient and cost-effective
solutions, and bringing those solutions to the
attention of the law enforcement community, NIJ
has developed a new cooperative effort between
NLECTC and the body armor industry. The existing
NLECTC program structure accomplishes this by
refining the process for developing policy and by
reviewing standards (see exhibit 6).

Key organizational components of NLECTC's policy
development process are NIJ, the Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Advisory Council
(LECTAC), NLECTC, OLES, LECTAC's technical
subcommittees, and the testing laboratories.
Industry's role has been formalized through the
introduction of advisory boards, whose functions
are included below.

NIJ. The Institute funds and manages all the
activities of NLECTC, resolves disputes and
appeals, conducts needs assessments, and
coordinates input from the criminal justice
system.

LECTAC. A key element in the policy and standards
development process, LECTAC is composed of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement
professionals who are appointed by NLECTC with the
approval of the Executive Committee of LECTAC.
LECTAC meets at least annually, and its
chairperson keeps in close contact with NIJ and
NLECTC throughout the year. The advisory council:

o Identifies critical product and technology needs
of the law enforcement community.

o Recommends priorities and methods that form the
basis from which standards and policies are
developed.

o Assesses law enforcement equipment issues,
including suggesting research and development
priorities.

o Suggests equipment to be tested and recommends
the development of guides, bulletins, and other
program publications. 

o Strengthens links between NIJ and the law
enforcement community.

LECTAC subcommittees. LECTAC's subcommittees
report to the Advisory Council and meet on an
as-needed basis. Subcommittees are formed to
address major areas of technology research and
development such as law enforcement and
corrections operations; weapons and protective
systems; communications; and contraband detection,
among others. The chair of a subcommittee also
serves as or appoints the chair of any advisory
board assigned to that subcommittee.

NLECTC. NLECTC coordinates the testing of all
equipment under the program and fields requests
for information and technical assistance from law
enforcement and corrections agencies. The law
enforcement and corrections communities look to
NLECTC for authoritative information on the latest
technology and products. NLECTC also serves as a
major source of information on all law enforcement
and corrections technologies. NLECTC:

o Coordinates equipment testing activities and
collects results from laboratories.

o Publishes Consumer Product Lists (CPLs) of
products that comply with NIJ standards.

o Operates a toll-free information service and
Internet site.

o Archives tested products.

o Issues publications on equipment and standards.

o Provides technical assistance to the law
enforcement community.

o Serves as a resource to LECTAC and the advisory
boards.

OLES. Funded by NIJ through an interagency
agreement, OLES is part of NIST. As NIJ's
principal agent for setting standards on law
enforcement equipment, OLES:

o Conducts technical studies.

o Develops initial standards for testing and
provides scientific and technical support to the
technical committees and advisory boards.

o Provides technical assistance to criminal
justice agencies.

o Evaluates and monitors testing laboratories.

Testing laboratories. Independent testing
laboratories are evaluated by OLES and
subsequently authorized by NLECTC to conduct
testing of manufacturers' products in accordance
with NIJ standards; each product is tested before
appearing in a Police Body Armor CPL. The testing
itself is contracted between manufacturer and
laboratory, but the equipment must be submitted
through NLECTC. Once a performance assurance
program has been developed, laboratories selected
by NLECTC to test body armor will be required to
provide the manufacturers with a followup
performance assurance program.

Advisory boards. Composed of industry and user
representatives, NLECTC intends to establish
advisory boards for each major
equipment/technology focus that will report to the
respective technical subcommittees of LECTAC. The
boards will provide an opportunity for the
industry and users to meet directly with LECTAC
technical subcommittees. Currently, the National
Armor Advisory Board (NAAB) is the only advisory
board that has been formed. It is composed of body
armor manufacturers, fiber and fabric
manufacturers, law enforcement management, and
rank-and-file representatives from law
enforcement. Board members review standards and
policy and recommend revisions to the Weapons and
Protective Systems Subcommittee of LECTAC. All
advisory boards will recommend actions concerning
possible modifications of NIJ standards. If an
advisory board endorses a recommendation to their
respective subcommittee, it will be referred to
LECTAC for its full endorsement. 

The Standards Review Process

With advice from NAAB, NLECTC, and the Weapons and
Protective Systems Subcommittee of LECTAC, NIJ has
formalized a process for accommodating changes to
the existing body armor standard. In this revised
process, shown in exhibit 7, a suggestion for a
change in the standard is submitted to NLECTC.
NLECTC then conducts an immediate review to ensure
that the suggestion is intelligible, relevant to
the equipment in question, and has not been
considered previously.

If the suggestion passes this review, copies are
forwarded to the Weapons and Protective Systems
Subcommittee and NAAB. If the suggestion has
technical merit and is feasible, the subcommittee
directs NLECTC to publish the suggestion and to
solicit comments from the field. NLECTC also
circulates the suggested change to NIJ, LECTAC,
and OLES for review.

Comments from the field regarding the
recommendations are provided to NLECTC in a
specified number of copies. Copies are also
provided by the commenter directly to the person
or organization who made the suggestion. NLECTC
forwards the comments, along with its
recommendations regarding the comments, to NIJ,
OLES, the Weapons and Protective System
Subcommittee, and NAAB for review. The
subcommittee then makes a final recommendation to
LECTAC, which passes it on to NIJ. NIJ and the
Office of General Counsel review the
recommendation to ensure that it fully complies
with the law and relevant policy. If it does,
NLECTC publishes the decision and the effective
date of the change.

The following options are available to the
reviewers when they consider a suggestion:

o Accept the suggestion as offered.

o Accept the suggestion with modifications.

o Refer the suggestion for further research.

o Reject the suggestion because it was improperly
submitted, previously rejected, irrelevant, or not
feasible.

Suggestions are processed at least annually. If a
suggestion is rejected, an explanation is
provided. NIJ does not consider revising the
standard unless supporting research is presented,
nor does NIJ change the standard without comments
from law enforcement and the body armor industry.
If NIJ errs, it is on the side of the user. The
standards review process is similar for other
equipment standards.

NIJ's responsiveness to law enforcement and
industry concerns is evident in recent changes in
the program. These changes include strengthening
the program's management and policy structure,
creating a process for modifying standards,
inviting industry representatives to participate
in the standards review process, and sending
letters to manufacturers to clarify the
responsibilities of those who choose to
participate in the body armor program. (This last
step is to prevent confusion and misunderstandings
that might develop in the use of the NIJ standard
and testing program for manufacturers' product
advertising and marketing.)

NIJ is proud of the partnership it is forging
among government, industry, and the Nation's
police and corrections officers. Like all
partnerships, the one between NIJ and body armor
manufacturers must be based on mutual rights and
responsibilities. In return for permission to use
the NIJ label, NIJ also asks manufacturers to take
responsibility for the safety of their products
that are sold to law enforcement officers.
Reciprocally, NIJ is committed to working with the
manufacturers to adjust the standards and testing
program to accommodate the needs and technological
advancements of the body armor industry.

------------------------------

6. The Right Protection

Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection 

The first step in selecting the appropriate
protection level of body armor is to establish the
level of protection that users need based on the
realistic weapon threat they face. (The six threat
levels classified by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) Standard-0101.03 are detailed in the
previous chapter.) To date, body armor has not
been known to fail to prevent the penetration of a
bullet constituting a threat equal to or less than
the protection rating of the armor. However,
officers have died from wounds received from
weapons or ammunition exceeding the rated
protection of the armor. While 100-percent
protection in all circumstances is impossible, the
routine use of appropriate body armor
significantly reduces the likelihood of fatal
injury. Body armor selection is to some extent a
tradeoff between ballistic protection and
wearability. The weight and bulk of body armor are
generally proportional to the level of ballistic
protection it provides; therefore, comfort
decreases as the protection level increases. All
departments should strive to select body armor
that their officers will wear, consistent with
their ballistic protection requirements. Agencies
should ensure that each officer knows and
understands the protection that it affords, as
well as its limitations.

The weapons and ammunition commonly found on the
street may vary significantly with geographic
location. Therefore, information concerning
weapons and ammunition that are confiscated in
both the local jurisdiction and nearby surrounding
areas must be considered, as well as statistics
concerning gun sales by local firearms dealers,
such as sporting goods stores. Such data will
permit an assessment of the current threat from
street weapons. NIJ strongly recommends the
selection of an armor that protects against both
the street threat and the officer's handgun. A
review of reports on officers killed during the
period from 1985 to 1996 shows that, on average,
one in six officers killed with a handgun was
killed with his or her own service weapon. 

Information from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR),
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted [15]
provides some insight into the overall threat to
officers nationwide. Statistics based on the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) UCR data
reveal that from 1985 to 1996, 840 law enforcement
officers were feloniously killed in the line of
duty (see exhibit 8). Of these, 769 (91.5 percent)
were killed by firearms--605 (72 percent) by
handguns, 114 (13.6 percent) by rifles, 50 (6
percent) by shotguns--and 71 (8.5 percent) by
other types of weapons. These other weapons
included knives (13 fatalities); bombs (10, 8 of
which occurred in a single incident--the bombing
of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City); personal weapons (5); and
automobiles and other fatal means not usually
thought of as weapons (43).

Of the 605 deaths from handguns, 9mm handguns or
lesser handguns were used in 500 (82.6 percent) of
the cases.

The "Takeaway" Problem

Another consideration in determining the
appropriate threat level is the type of service
weapon and ammunition used by the department. In
reviewing the UCR data for the same time period
(1985 to 1996), a total of 97 deaths, or 16
percent of deaths from handguns, resulted from
officers being shot with their own service weapon
(see exhibit 9). In these 97 cases, no documented
incidents occurred of a round from the officer's
service weapon penetrating the officer's body
armor and causing the fatal injury.

A dramatic decline has occurred in the number of
officers slain with their own weapons in the
1990s. For the period from 1985 to 1989, an
average of 12.2 officers were slain annually with
their own weapons; from 1990 to 1996, the average
decreased to 5.1 officers. This decrease can most
likely be attributed to several factors, including
increased officer awareness of the problem,
expanded use of body armor, enhanced officer
safety and weapon retention training, and the
emergence of holsters designed with security or
anti-takeaway features. However, officers should
still be cognizant of the potential danger posed
by their own sidearms, should they be used against
them. Generally speaking, Type II-A and Type II
armor provide protection against most types of
handgun ammunition commonly used by law
enforcement agencies today.

In analyzing potential weapon threats, a given
police department will probably identify several
threat levels, depending on the nature of specific
assignments. Specialized armor will be required
for special weapons and tactics team operations,
but these armors will only be issued and used as
needed. As noted earlier, armor that provides
protection against high-level threats is generally
heavy and bulky and therefore can be unsuitable
for full-time use.

A department should avoid the temptation to
purchase armor that provides protection far in
excess of realistic needs. Such a purchase not
only increases the cost, but increases the
likelihood that the armor will not be worn.
Overspecification of protection levels has been
alleged as the most common reason that armor is
not worn (DuPont study, pg. 12 of this document).

Recognizing that it may not be practical to
protect against all possible handgun attacks, a
department must carefully consider the selection
of armor appropriate to its needs. In the final
analysis, those responsible for selecting the
level of protection for armor to be used routinely
must exercise prudent judgment and decide whether
the overall benefits of limited protection
(purchasing a less protective armor type than the
maximum level of protection indicated by threat
analysis) outweigh the complete loss of protection
if the armor is not worn.

Armor Styles 

Concealable body armor. The most widely used
police body armor is the protective undergarment,
which is worn under the normal uniform shirt. If
properly designed, these garments are relatively
comfortable, lightweight, are not unduly
restrictive of movement, and are available in a
variety of designs.

Typical male and female undergarment body armor
garments are designed to provide full front, side,
and rear protection. Most undergarment armor uses
a hook-and-pile tape fastening system; some older
models may feature a "D" ring-fastening system.
The ballistic panel is often contained in pouches
in a polyester/cotton carrier. When purchasing
undergarments of this type, two carriers should be
ordered to permit one to be laundered while the
other is worn. Metal fasteners should be avoided,
for they can become secondary missiles.
Hook-and-pile tape fasteners, such as those
manufactured by Velcro Corp., should be at least
11/2 inches wide and should provide approximately
2 inches of adjustment. In addition, the fasteners
should be anchored to a good-quality elastic,
approximately 3 inches long, to facilitate proper
adjustment and to compensate for body movement.

The concealed undergarments for female officers
should conform to the female anatomy. The seam
construction for such garments that include seams
is critical. It is very important that the joined
pieces overlap each other a minimum of 1 inch.
Particular attention should be paid to the length
of the garment, which is a frequent problem. The
adjustment straps for the female undergarment may
be fastened to the back to improve the overall
appearance of the uniform.

Many manufacturers market loose-weave undershirts
to be worn with body armor. These undershirts may
appear to improve airflow over the armor,
minimizing heat build-up and perspiration.

Protective undergarments are also available with
special pouches that allow additional ballistic
protection by inserting armor panels, commonly
known as "trauma packs," in the front and, in some
cases, the rear. These panels may be hard,
comprised of metal, ceramic, or rigid plastic, or
may be soft, made from additional layers of
typical vest materials. Note that the increased
protection applies only to the portion of the
torso behind the insert. Thus far, NIJ has not
conducted research to determine the effectiveness
of such inserts. In general, NIJ believes that
agencies should select armor that provides the
rated level of protection over the entire area of
coverage, not just isolated areas.

Materials used to construct concealable body armor
also permit the design of various other armor
configurations, which are sometimes used by police
officers assigned to nonuniform duty, such as
detective or security details. These include the
ballistic-protective sports coats and vests. In
addition, raincoats and a variety of jackets, all
with ballistic liners, are available. Officers can
even purchase shirts with ballistic protection.
Even more casual appearing protective vests, such
as a simulated down outer vest and a denim work
jacket, are on the market. Numerous designs of
tactical protective vests are also available. All
these styles of body armor can meet the
requirements for NIJ Standard-0101.03.

Semirigid body armor. Body armor that provides
protection against higher threat levels (III and
IV), as specified in NIJ Standard-0101.03, will be
of either semirigid or rigid construction.
Semirigid armor can consist of a somewhat flexible
material with impregnated ballistic fabrics or a
garment composed of small articulated plates of
ballistic material such as steel, ceramic, or
plastic, reinforced with some type of woven
ballistic material. This design borrows from the
naturally occurring armor design of the armadillo.
Semirigid vests are difficult to conceal and allow
the use of dense materials (high areal density),
while retaining limited movement.

Rigid body armor. Rigid body armor is composed of
molded ballistic material, designed to cover
certain portions of the body. Rigid body armor is
perhaps the most restrictive of body movement and
is also difficult to conceal. A typical tactical
vest incorporates a panel of rigid armor into a
typical concealable armor vest and is worn
externally. In general, semirigid and rigid body
armors are used only for short periods when
expecting confrontation with high-level threats.
Users should carefully review the labels of rigid
armor to determine if it offers single-shot or
multihit capability.

Comfort and Fit

When selecting armor for full-time routine use by
an officer, comfort is a major factor. Armor that
is set aside or relegated to the trunk of a
cruiser is of no benefit. The NIJ development
effort recognized this "real world" problem and
therefore emphasized comfort in the design of
lightweight body armor for police use. Two
fundamental factors were considered: fit--from the
standpoint of mobility and the weight distribution
of the armor--and heat discomfort. Both these
armor characteristics were evaluated by the U.S.
Army Natick R&D Command, using instrumented
anatomical models of the human body. The
weight-distribution measurements led to an
improved design for the garments. Similarly, the
dissipation of body heat through body armor was
measured. Those tests demonstrated that, during
normal activities, an individual wearing body
armor would not suffer unduly from reduced
dissipation of body heat. For example, the
long-sleeved police uniform has roughly the same
heat dissipation as utility army fatigues. Adding
the original NIJ vest to the police uniform
prevented about the same amount of heat loss as
adding a liner to an army fatigue helmet.

Comfort, with respect either to fit or to heat
dissipation, is at best subjective and a matter of
individual sensation. However, adequate case
history and field experience exist to indicate
that body armor is suitable for full-time use and
that an officer should accept minor discomfort in
exchange for the protection that is afforded. To
resolve questions concerning comfort, a few
members of the department might wear samples of
armor on a trial basis before the department makes
a major purchase.

The introduction of several new fabrics used to
make the permanent protective cover for the
ballistic element and the removable outershell
carrier have greatly enhanced the comfort and
wearability of body armor. GoreTex[registered
trademark], a fabric made of expanded
Teflon[registered trademark], is a water-resistant
fabric that, according to the manufacturer, allows
perspiration to evaporate but prevents moisture
from reaching the ballistic material. By using
GoreTex[registered trademark], some manufacturers
have eliminated the water-repellent treatment on
the ballistic material, which they claim improves
the "breatheability" of the vest.

CoolMax [registered trademark], a fabric
originally developed for use in athletic apparel,
is now being used by some manufacturers in place
of traditional cotton and nylon fabric in
manufacturing the removable outershell carrier of
the vest. According to the manufacturer, CoolMax
[registered trademark] acts like a wick, drawing
perspiration away from the body to the outer
surface of the garment, where it can more easily
evaporate.

Laboratory tests and comments from officers who
wear body armor during their daily shifts have
identified a number of factors that bear on the
comfort of body armor when worn for extended
periods of time. See exhibit 10 for a listing of
factors to consider when evaluating armor.

Coverage

It is possible to purchase armor that covers only
the front torso, with a separate section that can
be added to protect the rear torso and the sides.
An officer who spends nearly the entire duty shift
in a vehicle may be tempted to wear only chest
protection, but this is not advisable.

Statistics bear grim testimony to the importance
of using armor that provides full coverage.
According to the UCR data from the period 1985 to
1996, 288 law enforcement officers were killed
while wearing protective armor (see exhibit 11).
Of those officers 169 (58.7 percent) were killed
by gunshot wounds to the head; 82 (28.5 percent)
died as a result of gunshot wounds to the upper
torso; 20 (6.9 percent) died as a result of
gunshot wounds below the waist; 10 (3.5 percent)
were struck by automobiles; 3 (1 percent) were
stabbed; and 4 (1.4 percent) died by other means.

Of the 82 officers killed by gunshot wounds to the
upper torso, 42 (51.2 percent) were killed when
the round entered the torso region between the
panels of the vest or through the arm openings,
and 22 (26.8 percent) were killed when the round
landed above the coverage area of the vest (see
exhibit 12). Therefore, a vest must provide full
front, side, and back protection with the
wrap-around portion going from front to back.
Proper fit is equally important for ensuring
adequate coverage and protection. Ideally,
officers should be individually measured and
fitted for concealable body armor. Because a large
weight gain or loss can have an adverse impact on
proper fit, armor should also be inspected
routinely to ensure proper fit. Improperly fitting
armor needs to be brought to a supervisor's
attention immediately for corrective action.

Fourteen of the 82 officers killed by gunshot
wounds to the upper torso died as a result of
rounds penetrating the body armor. Of these 14
incidents, 11 were the reported result of rifle
rounds, which the armor was not designed to
protect against. The other three were the result
of handgun ammunition. However, in only one of
these cases was it confirmed that a round fired
from a handgun actually penetrated the armor. In
this case, the officer was wearing a vest that
provided front-only protection; the penetrating
round exceeded the protection capabilities of the
vest and the second, fatal round impacted an area
not protected by the vest. No documented fatal
injury has ever resulted from a round of
ammunition penetrating body armor that NIJ had
approved as protection against that level of
threat.

------------------------------

7. Purchasing Body Armor

Overview

Before purchasing body armor, a police department
must first assess its potential ballistic threats
and determine what level of protection is required
for its officers. (This process is discussed in
chapter 6 of this guide.) Only after determining
the protection needs of the department should
those responsible for purchasing body armor begin
to review specific products. Next, the department
should select several models, preferably from
several different manufacturers, from the Police
Body Armor Consumer Product List (CPL) that meet
the department's protection needs. This document,
published through the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), provides a
listing of the models of armor that have been
tested and found to comply with Ballistic
Resistance of Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.03,
which independently validates the manufacturer's
claims regarding the performance characteristics
of the vest.

The next step is to solicit competitive bids from
the companies (or company representatives) that
manufacture these models and to choose a model
(usually the most cost-effective option). And when
the armor arrives, the purchaser should verify
that the armor received is the specific model that
was ordered.

At a glance, purchasing body armor may seem like a
relatively simple process. However, complications
sometimes arise from various sources that make the
purchasing process much more involved. Two of the
principal problems that can complicate the
purchasing process are obtaining objective
information from salespeople and the tendency to
overspecify departmental needs through the
departmental procurement process.

A salesperson's goal is to persuade a department
that his or her product is the best available.
Sometimes, a salesperson will suggest a department
include requirements unique to his or her
company's product in purchase specifications.
Also, some manufacturers use product
demonstrations that are designed to show that
their armor is superior to that of competitors.
Departments should be cautious of these practices.
Basing purchasing decisions on NIJ Standard-
0101.03 and the Police Body Armor CPL can help
departments avoid the problems caused by the use
of a single manufacturer's construction and/or
design specifications. These problems include
paying higher rates if the specifications limit
competition to a single source or purchasing armor
that may not meet department needs.

Police departments often handle armor procurement
as a committee action. This approach can result in
overspecification of department needs, caused by
trying to satisfy all of the committee members by
including each member's personal preferences in
the product specifications. A more efficient
approach is to assign the task to two or three
officers, provide resources to help them
familiarize themselves with armor technology, and
allow them to independently assess the
department's needs. The officers should then make
a decision, informing the department's
administration, justifying their selection, and
being prepared to demonstrate why their choice
represents the needs of the majority of officers.

The Procurement Process

Typically in the procurement process, an agency or
department develops requirements, solicits bids,
reviews bids and submitted samples, and then
awards the contract to the bidder that best meets
the price and product specifications.

Generally, armor purchases fall into one of four
categories:

o Individual purchases from a distributor or
retail outlet.

o Small-quantity departmental purchases.

o Large-quantity departmental purchases (several
hundred units or more).

o As-needed purchases procured through an
open-ended agreement (also called a term
contract).

Individual or small-quantity purchases can be best
described as "what you see is what you get."
Large-quantity purchases should be made only
through a competitive process involving several
bids from the manufacturers that produce the
models meeting the department's protective needs.

NIJ Standard-0101.03 focuses on the ballistic
protection characteristics of body armor, and the
Police Body Armor CPL presents the models that
meet the requirements of the standard. Departments
that base their purchases on the Police Body Armor
CPL need to specify in the purchase agreement any
additional features they require, as determined
during the needs assessment phase, such as color
or area of coverage. 

Procurement of law enforcement equipment should
always focus on the following areas:

o Clarity (ensuring that the purchase agreement is
not ambiguous in any way).

o Simplicity (including only items essential to
the purchase agreement).

o Internal consistency (ensuring that requirements
for each individual item do not conflict with one
another).

To ensure that bids involve only armor in
compliance with NIJ Standard-0101.03, a typical
purchase agreement might include the following
wording:

The body armor model shall be tested by NLECTC and
found to comply with all requirements of NIJ
Standard-0101.03 [or current edition if a new
revision is available], Ballistic Resistance of
Police Body Armor, dated April 1987. It shall be
of Type (specify appropriate threat level and test
ammunitions), as defined in that standard, and
shall afford full protection to the torso front,
torso back, and sides.

A purchaser needing special ballistic protection
that would require additional testing should
specify the exact test rounds to be used (listing
such variables as caliber, bullet shape, bullet
mass, configuration, and velocity) and state that
NIJ Standard-0101.03 will govern in other
respects. When additional testing is needed, the
police department should place reasonable time
demands on the manufacturers.

A department developing a purchase agreement
should be aware of two issues that may complicate
the procurement process. The first, mentioned
earlier in this chapter, is to describe a
particular product in the product specifications
section of the solicitation for bids, which would
eliminate the chance of a truly competitive
process. Instead, the department should consider
requesting bids for armor that complies with NIJ
Standard-0101.03 and then add specific,
nonballistic features only if essential. The
second issue is the requirement that the
department accept the lowest bid. Instead, the
department should consider adding a clause in the
bid solicitation that allows the agency to buy
from the manufacturer offering the armor that best
meets the department's needs and that the officers
find most comfortable.

Ensuring Compliance Status

Just as a department should not purchase a model
of armor that has not been tested by NLECTC or
does not comply with NIJ Standard-0101.03, a
department also should not accept statements--
written in the bid or verbally made by a
salesperson--that the model shown is "just like"
or "identical to" a model from the Police Body
Armor CPL. Instead, those responsible for
procurement should ensure that the armor model
designation on the ballistic panel label is
identical to the one listed in the Police Body
Armor CPL and should receive proof (a copy of the
compliance letter issued by NLECTC to the
manufacturer for that model) that the armor is in
compliance with NIJ Standard-0101.03. If the
supplier or bidder cannot provide these two items,
the department should use another supplier. If a
department still has questions about the
compliance status of a particular model, they
should contact NLECTC at 800-248-2742 or 301-519-
5060.

Model Procurement Specifications

Major purchases of armor give departments the
chance to specify exactly what features they want
included in the product design that will provide
for officers' body armor needs. Also, each
jurisdiction is subject to departmental
procurement terms and must add specifications to
the solicitation and purchase agreement as
required by these terms. For instance, Federal
procurements often include a clause requiring that
the items purchased be manufactured in the United
States; other jurisdictions may require preference
be given to small businesses or local
manufacturers. Such contract conditions are often
written in wording standard to all departmental
purchasing orders and then inserted in appropriate
sections of each bid package. Yet, departments
should remember that overspecification can
complicate the procurement process by making it
difficult for a department to find a product that
meets all of the specifications.

Documents related to the procurement of body armor
should include certain items. The issues discussed
in the remainder of this chapter apply to the
specifications section of purchase orders and
assume that the department has previously assessed
its officers' protection needs and determined the
appropriate type of armor, as specified in NIJ
Standard-0101.03. Departments should not include
requirements that are unreasonable or technically
impossible to achieve.

The following guide to procurement specifications
assumes the department has selected a specific
type of armor from a single manufacturer that
provides the needed protection level. (Appendix D
provides an example of the procurement
specifications section of a purchase agreement
solicitation.) Negotiating an open-ended agreement
(term contract) for multiple models, styles, and
armor types from a single manufacturer involves a
separate set of issues.

Terms of agreement. Whether a department purchases
armor in a single quantity (buying one unit at a
time or a quantity at one time), through a blanket
purchase agreement, or under a term contract, the
bidder must know how many units will be purchased,
including the number of vests for female officers.
Under a blanket purchase agreement, an agency can
purchase units "as needed" during the life of the
contract. No matter which approach is used, a
department may want to include a clause for
ordering additional units, which would make future
purchases simpler because new bids would not be
required.

Prebid conference. When purchasing a large
quantity of armor or considering a blanket
purchase agreement, a department may want to
arrange a prebid conference between it and
prospective bidders. Bidders and the department
can then review the solicitation as well as the
department's specifications, so that all parties
clearly understand the department's needs. Also, a
prebid conference may reveal any ambiguous or
contradictory terms or requirements in the
solicitation. If the solicitation needs to be
modified, the department can issue an addendum.

Bidding and award process. The clauses in
procurement packages should be self-explanatory
and furnish adequate flexibility in purchasing the
armor considered most appropriate for the
department. Again, the Police Body Armor CPL
should be the main resource for departments. In
the bid, the manufacturer should identify the
specific model it proposes to provide. Moreover,
the final purchase agreement, if other than the
bid solicitation package, must specify the model
selected.

Invoicing and delivery. This section of the
package should propose a detailed delivery
schedule and should specify departmental invoicing
and payment regulations and procedures.

Warranty and insurance. These clauses clarify the
warranty on the purchased units. Here the
department must specify the amount of product
liability insurance required based on its needs or
on the options available from the manufacturer.
Product liability insurance can be expensive; a
department should consult with counsel about
liability insurance's benefits to the department
before including an insurance clause.

Armor specifications. This section is the focal
point of a procurement program, because here the
department delineates the protection performance
it expects of the armor to be purchased as well as
departmental preferences about design and
configuration. (See appendix D.)

o Item A--NIJ Standard-0101.03 requirements.
Citing the ballistic performance required by
specifying the appropriate armor type, as defined
by NIJ Standard-0101.03, is a mandatory component
of the specifications section. This information
ensures that the armor ordered provides a known
performance level.

o Item B--Labeling. The label included on the
ballistic element is another critical item, as it
alerts the wearer to how limited the protection
provided is. It also states that the individual
unit complies with NIJ Standard-0101.03. If the
unit does not perform as stated on the label, a
department may have the right to legal recourse.

Inclusion of the manufacturer's model number on
the ballistic panel label is also important
because it is the primary means for verifying that
the armor received is that ordered and that the
compliance matches the armor type listed on the
purchase order. In past cases reviewed by NLECTC,
armor has been labeled with an incorrect (i.e.,
providing a lower level of protection than that
ordered) ballistic element in a model rated for a
higher level of protection. 

A manufacturer or distributor may use catalog
numbers or similar designations to further
identify the product if the armor is properly
identified as a specific model in compliance with
NIJ Standard-0101.03. The catalog number must be
separate from the model or style number.
Meanwhile, the model number should be unique and
the same as the model number tested by NLECTC.

Again, it is important that departments purchase
only models that have been tested by NLECTC and
found to comply with NIJ Standard-0101.03. By
doing so, if there ever is any question about an
individual unit's configuration or construction,
the armor can be compared with the unit of that
particular model that was originally tested by
NLECTC, which NLECTC retains in archival storage.

o Item C--Configuration. Specifying a particular
configuration of ballistic elements in a
particular carrier is essential if the department
believes that only one type of configuration will
meet the department's needs. A department that
wants to explore its configuration options may not
want to include such a statement.

Manufacturers sometimes use ballistic elements
that were tested and found to comply with NIJ
Standard-0101.03 in more than one configuration.
For instance, a ballistic element may have been
tested in a configuration with an open,
unprotected area on the side of the torso; an
identical ballistic element may also be
manufactured with the sides extended to create an
overlapping configuration. These two would be
considered as separate styles of the same model.

o Item D--Adjustment options. This clause
identifies design features that will make the
armor more comfortable for the wearer. However,
this clause may not apply to tactical armor or
other armor configurations worn outside of
clothing.

o Item E--"Riding up." Wearing armor for long
periods of time can cause the armor to move up on
the wearer's body, which decreases the officer's
comfort. This clause applies only to concealable
armor and may not be necessary if the adjustments
in Item D are completed.

o Item F--Metals. Departments should carefully
evaluate purchasing armor that includes any metal
components, as the wearer may be injured if a
bullet strikes the metal part and ricochets, or if
a piece of the metal component breaks off and
becomes a secondary projectile.

o Item G--Color. To ensure that the armor is
properly concealed, it is important for
departments to choose a color that will not be
visible through the wearer's uniform.

o Item H--Quality. This clause ensures that the
manufacturer will produce the armor using suitable
materials and a high workmanship quality in
producing the units.

Departments should not include any specifications
that are unique to one manufacturer's product so
as not to reduce their available options to a
single model. Likewise, they should not try to
dictate how the ballistic element used in the
armor is constructed. For instance, a department
should never specify a specific fabric or weave
for the ballistic material, nor should it specify
the number of layers of material to be used in the
ballistic element. Doing so could restrict the bid
to a single manufacturer, result in armor that
does not meet the requirements of NIJ Standard-
0101.03, or create conflicting requirements, in
which case the manufacturer could be released from
liability if the armor does not perform properly.
In addition, departments should not name a maximum
weight, which could mean that officers would not
receive the needed ballistic protection because
the required type of armor weighed more than the
specified limit.

Departments should also include in the procurement
specifications any features identified as
essential in the needs assessment phase. For
instance, some departments have required that
armor be designed so that the front and back
panels cannot be worn separately, to prevent
officers from wearing only the front part of the
armor. Other departments require that concealable
armor be supplied with two carriers, so that one
can be laundered while the other is in use.
Regarding armor configuration, NIJ recommends that
armor provide side protection for full torso
coverage. Overlapping the front and back panels by
at least 1 inch--preferably 2 inches--will
accomplish this. NIJ suggests that when
overlapping the two panels, the front panel should
overlap the back panel to prevent a round from
"skipping" between the two panels.

If the department wants each officer's armor to be
custom fitted, the specifications section should
include a clause to that effect, stating how and
where fittings will take place. Also, labeling
specifications should require that the name of the
officer be printed on the armor label.

A number of other items can be included in the
procurement specifications, such as requiring that
the armor use nonmetallic "D" rings or
hook-and-pile fasteners, but NIJ does not
recommend this practice. Items of personal
preference are best addressed when departments are
inspecting the manufacturers' samples and
evaluating them for comfort. In addition,
prospective buyers should remember that specifying
a number of required design characteristics
increases the chance that the armor will become a
custom or nonstandard design, which could require
additional testing to ensure compliance with NIJ
Standard-0101.03.

Items to be submitted with the bid. This section--
a listing of the required items to be included in
the bid package--should be self-explanatory to
bidders. Because each department is subject to a
particular set of procurement regulations,
additional clauses addressing these requirements
will most likely be necessary.

Termination of agreement. A clause that specifies
the conditions under which the department can
terminate the contract must be included in any
procurement documents. If a department is
purchasing through a blanket agreement or term
contract, it may want to include a "for the
convenience of the department," 30-day,
written-notice clause allowing the department to
cancel the agreement if officers find the armor
received--even though in full compliance with the
procurement specifications--to be unacceptable.

Another justifiable reason for breaking the
contract is if the armor is not delivered
according to the predetermined shipping schedule,
in which case the department should be allowed to
cancel the contract and begin legal proceedings
for default. Receiving a substandard product
should also justify canceling the contract. When
listing the product specifications, a department
must be sure to define the reasons why the product
may be rejected and the contract terminated. For
instance, poor workmanship is a legitimate cause
for rejection, but may be difficult to objectively
establish unless previously defined in the
purchase agreement.

Acceptance testing. Ballistic-resistant materials,
like components of any other product, may vary
among the manufacturer's lots of production
material. For this reason, the material used to
produce the armor purchased may not perform as
well as that used to produce the samples tested by
NLECTC. Therefore, some departments purchasing
large quantities of armor include requirements for
acceptance testing in their procurement
specifications to ensure that the armor purchased
complies with NIJ Standard-0101.03 even though the
model is listed in the Police Body Armor CPL as in
compliance. If acceptance testing is to be
included, the manufacturer and the department must
agree on the testing and associated costs.

Obviously, substandard ballistic performance is
the central concern for police departments and is
a primary reason why contracts are canceled.
Ballistic performance can only be determined by
testing that will destroy the armor. Furthermore,
to verify each model's full compliance with NIJ
Standard-0101.03, a minimum of four sets of armor
must be tested. This full test currently costs
approximately $1,500, not including the price of
the vests used in the testing.

When the $1,500 (plus armor) cost of testing is
amortized over 100 vests that are represented by
the armor being tested, the per vest cost is
approximately $30. If every unit of armor
purchased was manufactured from the same lot of
ballistic material, a single set of tests would be
required. However, if the armor purchased has been
constructed from two or more production lots, NIJ
suggests that samples from each lot be tested. It
is important to note that each additional
production lot used will significantly increase
these testing costs.

A department wanting to use acceptance testing
must address it in its procurement package, noting
that testing will be conducted once the purchase
is delivered and that if the armor fails to comply
with NIJ Standard-0101.03 the armor will be
rejected and returned and the contract will be
terminated. The procurement package must also
identify who will pay for the armor to be
returned--the department or the manufacturer.

In-service testing. Another testing-related issue
stems from the fact that the armor must continue
to meet the requirements of NIJ Standard-0101.03
while the armor is under the manufacturer's
warranty. DuPont, for instance, suggests that
police departments inspect and test their armor
after 3 to 5 years of use, based on the company's
belief that the ballistic performance of armor
manufactured from Kevlar[registered trademark] can
be reduced through use and abuse. [16] In
addition, some departments have, on their own
initiative, implemented annual inspection and
testing programs independent of those required for
warranty purposes.

One must ask: Who pays for this testing, and what
happens if testing reveals that the armor does not
comply with NIJ Standard-0101.03? Large
departments usually can absorb armor testing costs
into their equipment maintenance budget.
Departments planning to conduct annual testing of
armor should note this in the procurement package
and should identify the funding source. 

The answer to the second question--what happens if
the armor fails to comply with NIJ Standard-
0101.03--depends on the purchase agreement.
According to NLECTC, one department stated in its
bid package that if armor in service is tested and
does not comply with the NIJ standard, the
manufacturer will refund the annual prorated value
of the product for the remaining warranty period.
For example, the manufacturer would refund 20
percent of the purchase price for each remaining
year of a 5-year warranty (100 percent  5 years =
20 percent per year). The same bid package also
states that the department will return all of the
armor to the manufacturer. Another approach is for
the manufacturer to provide a credit to the
department toward the purchase of replacement
armor, prorated according to a formula similar to
that listed above.

Protection/Testing Considerations

Although body armor for routine, full-time wear
has been available for approximately 20 years, the
current technology is relatively new and continues
to change. For instance, manufacturers once used
almost exclusively a single type of fabric in
constructing concealable body armor. Today, at
least five different types of fiber are used to
manufacture ballistic-resistant fabric, each of
which is available in a variety of woven and
nonwoven fabrics and panels. The ballistic
protection properties differ among materials and
often two or more types of fabrics or composites
are used in combination to manufacture a vest.
Because of these complexities, a department should
not attempt to dictate how the ballistic element
will be constructed, such as by specifying the
number or types of layers of ballistic material.
Armor performance is the critical issue, not the
manufacturer's construction of the armor.

Acceptance testing should be performed whenever a
large-quantity purchase is received. However, NIJ
does not consider this guiding rule to apply to
blanket purchase agreements and term contracts,
because manufacturers may produce individual
purchase orders from several lots of material. In
these cases, a department may want to carry out
limited testing periodically, but, to test armor
from each production lot would be expensive and
impractical. Again, the manufacturer and the
purchaser must address in the contract what will
happen if any of the armor fails to comply with
NIJ Standard-0101.03. For instance, the
manufacturer might agree to replace any armor
manufactured from the lot of ballistic material
that failed testing. In addition, a department may
want to test previously purchased armor that was
manufactured from material lots not included in
prior screening tests. To accurately assess its
testing alternatives, a department must consider
the structure of its blanket purchase agreement or
term contract.

A department can accurately estimate testing costs
only if it knows how many tests will need to be
conducted. Thus, a department that requires
acceptance testing--especially for small-quantity
purchases--may want to include in its contract a
clause limiting the number of lots of ballistic
material that will be used to manufacture the
armor to a few lots or even one. Testing costs are
either directly paid by the department or absorbed
into the manufacturer's unit cost. Indirect costs
associated with acceptance testing and later
service-life testing include administrative
paperwork, time for analyzing the results, and
travel, if the department wants a representative
to witness the ballistic testing.

Police departments often include armor testing
costs and departmental travel as
manufacturer-related expenses, which are part of
the bid price. However, NIJ does not recommend
this practice because the public served by a
department might doubt the propriety of an officer
who accepts travel expenses from the manufacturer
when the performance of armor purchased is in
question. Instead, NIJ suggests that the
department separately budget for armor testing and
contract directly with a NLECTC-approved
laboratory. This provides a clearer picture of the
armor purchase price per unit and provides the
department with more flexibility in its testing
program.

Finally, a department that elects to conduct
acceptance or service-life testing must remember
to order an adequate number of additional sets of
armor to be used for testing.

------------------------------

8. Maintaining Body Armor

The proper care of today's modern body armor
requires taking precautions when cleaning the
garment. Every model of armor that complies with
Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor: NIJ
Standard-0101.03 has an instruction label
indicating how to clean the components.
Individuals should follow these instructions,
making certain that anyone else who cares for the
garment is also aware of correct cleaning
procedures. 

The ballistic panels, or inserts, of body armor
should be washed by hand with cold water using a
sponge or soft cloth and mild home laundry
detergent. Most manufacturers strongly recommend
that the ballistic panel never be submerged in
water. Bleach (including nonchlorine or
peroxide-based bleach) or starch, even when highly
diluted, should not be used as these may reduce
the garment's level of ballistic resistance. If a
model of armor has a removable carrier, it is
possible that the carrier may be machine washable.
However, it is imperative to follow the
manufacturer's care instructions found on the
ballistic panel and carrier labels.

Body armor panels or inserts are not to be machine
washed or dried, either in the home or
commercially. The fabric can be damaged by laundry
equipment, ultimately affecting its ballistic
performance. Commercial laundries also use
commercial detergents, which are much harsher than
home detergents, and pose another threat to
maintaining the ballistic-resistant properties of
the fabric. According to DuPont, perchlorethylene
is the only drycleaning solvent found so far that
does not significantly degrade the ballistic
protection provided by current body armor. [17]
However, to eliminate the possibility of an
accident and avoid the variety of drycleaning
solvents in use, drycleaning armor is not
recommended.

Most modern body armor contains water-repellant
treated or inherently water-repellant fabrics,
making hand washing possible by preventing the
water used to wash the vest from degrading the
ballistic capabilities of the vest. However,
rinsing thoroughly is still important to remove
all traces of soap. Rinsing properly prohibits the
accumulation of residual soap film, which can
absorb water and reduce the ballistic resistance
of certain types of ballistic fabric.

Body armor fabric should never be dried outdoors,
even in the shade, as ultraviolet light is known
to cause degradation of certain types of ballistic
fabric. Tests have demonstrated that ballistic
efficiency is significantly and adversely affected
by exposure to sunlight for extended periods of
time. 

Each time body armor is washed, it should be
inspected for any signs of wear. If the ballistic
fabric is not covered with a permanent cover, and
it appears that the thread used to sew layers
together is wearing badly or that the fabric is
unraveling, the vest should be returned to the
manufacturer for replacement. Officers should
never attempt to repair armor themselves under any
circumstances.

Today, most manufacturers market concealable body
armor with the ballistic panel sealed within a
moisture barrier, such as thin rip-stop nylon or
coated cloth, instead of chemically waterproofing
the fabric. The owner of such armor must routinely
inspect it to be sure that the cover of the
ballistic inserts has not been cut or damaged,
which would allow moisture to penetrate the
ballistic panel. Even if the outer covers have not
been cut or otherwise damaged, the moisture
barrier can still be damaged. When the ballistic
material or the outershell carrier rubs over the
ballistic panel cover as a result of the normal
flexing that occurs when body armor is in use, it
can wear through the cover and expose the armor to
moisture penetration. It should also be noted that
certain types of covering materials tend to make
the armor much warmer to wear, because it
significantly reduces the rate at which
perspiration can evaporate or be absorbed.

The exceptional ballistic efficiency of materials
used to construct body armor compensates for any
of these limitations associated with maintenance
and care. The user can easily care for and
properly maintain body armor and ensure that it
provides its rated protection throughout its
service life.

When caring for hard armor, it is important to
remember that hard body armor, particularly
ceramic material, must be handled carefully
because it is fragile. Ceramic materials--such as
boron carbide, aluminum oxide, or silicon carbide-
-are extremely brittle. Such armor should not be
dropped on hard surfaces and, when used, the
ceramic must serve as the striking (exterior)
surface. It should also be inspected before each
use to ensure that no surface cracks are present
that would degrade ballistic performance.

------------------------------

9. Body Armor Life Expectancy

One of the most frequently asked questions the
National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center (NLECTC) receives is, "How long
does body armor last?" Unfortunately, no
definitive answer can be given to this question.
Every piece of armor will eventually have to be
replaced. Body armor is not a one-time buy. For
example, if a department changes its service
weapons or ammunition, the armor worn by its
officers must be shown to protect against the new
weapons systems. The armor must be capable of
defeating typical ammunition threats that the
officers may face (see chapter 6). If an agency
determines that the ammunition threats that they
face have increased, upgrading to a higher level
of protection may be appropriate. An individual's
body changes from time to time, and armor that no
longer fits or is uncomfortable is likely not to
be worn.

Since no two pieces of armor are exposed to
identical wear or care, each must be evaluated
individually. Armor can generally be classified
according to its appearance: "New," "Good,"
"Fair," or "Poor." Currently, the only method to
evaluate armor's performance is destructive
ballistic testing. The National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), through its NLECTC system, is
investigating development of alternative methods
to evaluate body armor's ongoing performance and
lifespan.

Age alone does not cause body armor's ballistic
resistance to deteriorate. The care and
maintenance of a garment--or the lack thereof--
have been shown to have a greater impact than age
on the length of service life of a unit of body
armor. Armor that is 10 years old and has never
been issued may be perfectly acceptable for use,
provided that the rated level of protection is
still appropriate for the typical threats faced.
Conversely, 2- or 3-year-old armor that has been
worn regularly and improperly cared for may not be
serviceable.

Limited studies of the ballistic-resistant
capabilities of armor used for extended periods of
time were initiated in 1983 by DuPont, at which
time some of the armor tested had been in service
for more than 8 years. Both the DuPont testing and
a 1986 study by NIJ [18] (Ballistic Tests of Used
Body Armor) found that age alone does not degrade
the ballistic properties of armor. Armor
manufactured in 1975 that remained in inventory
without issue exhibited ballistic-resistant
properties identical to those at the time of
manufacture. Both research studies included armor
that had been in use for as long as 10 years and
that had ballistic properties that were
indistinguishable from those of unused armor
manufactured at the same time.

NIJ tests failed to demonstrate any significant
differences in 10-year-old armor, regardless of
the extent of use or apparent physical condition.
For this testing, 24 Type I vests made of
Kevlar[registered trademark], issued as part of
the original NIJ demonstration project in 1975,
were returned by the departments. The vests were
separated into categories based on use and wear.
Eight vests had never been worn, another eight
showed signs of heavy wear, and four showed signs
of moderate or light wear. The test demonstrated
that the armor that had been used showed no
significant loss of ballistic performance when
compared to the units that were not used.

In contrast, data from the DuPont study showed
that used vests had lesser ballistic performance
than new vests. Some vests with marginal
performance had been in use for only 3 to 5 years.
DuPont researchers concluded that, regardless of
age, use and abuse can cause ballistic decay. For
example, one poorly performing 3-year-old vest
appeared to have been exposed to excessive
ultraviolet radiation.

DuPont suggests that testing be considered at
between 3 and 5 years of use, [19] but NIJ
believes that tests are not necessary until the
armor has been in service for 5 years. NIJ agrees,
however, that armor should be visually inspected
at least once a year and that ballistic tests
should be conducted if the armor shows signs of
excessive wear. If armor is worn only occasionally
and properly maintained, there is no reason to be
concerned that ballistic-resistant properties have
deteriorated. Proper care methods and inspections
are addressed in chapter 8.

Independent of the above research studies, some
departments have established formal replacement
policies based solely on the length of time since
the date of issuance. Some departments have
selected 5 years for an automatic replacement
cycle. Departments need to recognize that a
replacement policy should be consistent with the
way officers use their armor. If armor is worn
only occasionally, such as tactical armor, the
policy might be limited to purchasing armor for
newly hired recruits and replacing a defined
percentage to accommodate problems of fit or
excessive wear and tear. However, a department
with a high wear rate may wish to select a routine
cycle, based on length of service.

Body Armor Testing by Departments

It appears that until further studies are
conducted and nondestructive test methods
developed, a department has little choice but to
routinely conduct ballistic tests of its armor. If
it can afford to, a department should initiate
test programs to evaluate the ballistic-resistant
protection provided by existing armor--
particularly if it has armor that is more than 5
years old. The department should consider
replacement if the ballistic properties of armor
are questionable.

In addition, until NIJ can develop an alternate
protocol for ongoing performance assurance
testing, all testing should be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of NIJ Standard-
0101.03. The use of V50 ballistic limit testing of
body armor produces results that cannot be
correlated to the current edition of the NIJ
standard. A discussion of V50 testing is found in
chapter 5.

NIJ recommends that the tests be conducted while
the armor is wet. During the 1986 NIJ testing of
used vests, two vests were found to exhibit
marginal V50 ballistic limit when tested wet. When
retested after drying, the ballistic limit was
satisfactory. Chemical analysis revealed that the
fabric lacked proper waterproofing.

Test extensively only when purchasing a
significant quantity of armor. Armor testing is
expensive, and departments must plan their actions
based on their circumstances. For example, a
department could probably buy at least four to
eight new sets of armor, depending on the threat
level, for the cost of one NIJ test.

A department that elects to implement an
armor-testing program must clearly establish the
testing objective. If the objective is to satisfy
the department that its armor provides appropriate
protection, two options exist: a screening test of
limited scope or a complete test in accordance
with NIJ Standard-0101.03.

Select the worst looking armor for testing. In a
screening test, the laboratory might conduct the
six-shot NIJ test sequence on a single set of
armor--firing one test ammunition against the
front panel and the second test ammunition against
the back panel with both panels wet. This
represents one-fourth of the testing required by
the standard and should be less expensive. If
armor passes the screening test, there should be
no cause for concern. If the armor fails the test,
the department should not automatically assume
that all of the vests of that particular model
owned by the department are unsafe. Rather, this
suggests that these particular used vests have
questionable protection capabilities. The agency
may want to consider conducting additional testing
of other units of this model from the same
material production lot number, which should be
indicated on the ballistic panel label. This
testing will help determine if the failure was an
isolated one or is representative of the entire
purchase lot. If further testing results in
additional failures, all vests from that lot of
material should be replaced. Also, agencies that
experience retest failures should contact NLECTC
at 800-248-2742 and arrange to have their vests
compared to the originally tested vests stored in
NLECTC's archives. On several occasions, vests
that have failed an agency's retesting have been
found to differ in construction from the vest
originally tested by the manufacturer as part of
NIJ's voluntary compliance testing program.

When a unit of armor fails testing, the department
will probably consider seeking redress from the
manufacturer. Before taking such action,
departments should do the following:

o Ensure that the vests were originally tested to
NIJ Standard-0101.03 before testing samples to
that standard's requirements. A manufacturer can
be held responsible only for the terms of the
contract it signed and the standards and
specifications in that contract. Unless the
department's purchase contract clearly addresses
testing armor in service, lists the tests that
will be conducted, and specifies the department's
recourse should armor fail tests, NIJ recommends
that the department carefully study its situation
before proceeding.

o Have the legal adviser examine the contract and
any statement on the armor label to determine
whether grounds for legal action exist.

If the department decides to go forward with
testing, it should contact the manufacturer.
Establish in advance testing objectives, action to
be taken based on the test results, and the
manufacturer's position. The manufacturer should
have the right to be present during the testing.
Given the opportunity to work with a department to
determine a mutually satisfactory course of
action, reputable manufacturers will normally
cooperate. Conversely, a manufacturer suddenly
confronted with allegations of a problem with its
product without prior indication of the
department's planned actions can be expected to
become defensive, if not adversarial. Also, a
manufacturer may have a legitimate complaint if
its product's performance is questioned based on
incorrect or improper test results. Even worse, if
officers know of questionable data, they may lose
confidence in their armor and stop wearing it.

Unless the department has adequate resources and
equipment, NIJ strongly recommends using approved
independent test laboratories to conduct any
ongoing performance testing. A list of approved
laboratories can be obtained by contacting NLECTC
at 800-248-2742.

A department that wants to conduct its own testing
must, at a minimum, have a reliable chronograph
and properly conditioned backing material. The use
of alternate backing material (phone books,
newspapers), and of commercially loaded ammunition
of unknown velocity, is certain to provide
inconsistent test data that cannot be correlated
to testing conducted through NLECTC's voluntary
compliance-testing program.

Departments that cannot afford to conduct
ballistic testing at independent laboratories
should at least follow these NIJ-recommended
procedures:

o Inspect each unit of armor carefully upon
purchase and prior to issue. Any evidence of poor
workmanship or visible differences from samples
shown before purchase should be brought to the
manufacturer's attention immediately.

o Ensure that each unit of armor is properly and
durably labeled in accordance with the
requirements of the NIJ standard. Each ballistic
panel should be clearly labeled with the
NIJ-complying model designation as it appears in
the Police Body Armor Consumer Product List.

o Upon issue, the quartermaster or supervisor
responsible for issuing the equipment should use a
permanent marker to legibly enter on the label the
name of the officer to whom the armor is issued
and the date of issue. If possible, photocopies of
these labels should be made and placed in a
designated file.

o Institute a routine inspection program for body
armor, just as a department would with vehicles or
firearms. Develop a written policy on the
frequency and extent of these inspections. At a
minimum, inspect armor annually in conjunction
with firearms training and qualification. The
sample form in this manual (appendix E) can be
used for this purpose. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has
prepared a model policy for the use of police body
armor, and copies can be obtained from the
association. Information on contacting IACP can be
found in the Resource List at the end of this
document.

o Instruct personnel to report any defects or
damage to the body armor immediately. The
quartermaster or supervisor should take immediate
action to replace any body armor found to be
unserviceable. NIJ does not recommend that the
agency or anyone else other than the manufacturer
attempt to repair damaged body armor.

o Develop written policies regarding guidelines
for armor's replacement. A department must
thoroughly assess its needs and requirements
before instituting such a policy.

When concealable body armor was first introduced,
the limits of deformation to evaluate blunt trauma
protection had not yet been established.
Sufficient historical data were not yet available
to establish a reasonable service life for armor
to provide the rated level of ballistic
protection. The performance requirements for
deformation were first established in 1978, when
the NIJ standard was first revised. Consequently,
armor purchased prior to 1978 was not tested for
compliance with the current deformation
requirement.

Similarly, body armor manufactured prior to 1985,
when the NIJ standard was revised for the second
time, was not tested for penetration resistance
when struck at an angle. From 1985 to April 1987,
manufacturers had their armor tested for
compliance with the requirements of NIJ Standard-
0101.02. Unfortunately, testing occurred prior to
NLECTC's establishment and the testing program was
administered differently; testing records are
incomplete; and the samples tested were not
retained in archival storage. Consequently, NLECTC
cannot validate the results of testing done in
accordance with NIJ Standard-0101.02. Should the
manufacturer certification of compliance to NIJ
Standard-0101.02 come into question, NLECTC cannot
verify that a given armor model was in compliance
with the standard or that it is identical to the
armor tested.

Thus, any department with armor in its inventory
that was purchased prior to the issuance of NIJ
Standard-0101.03 in April 1987 might wonder
whether that armor is suitable for current use or
if it should be replaced. If the armor issued to
officers was not tested to determine if it
complies with NIJ Standard-0101.03, even if its
rated level of protection (armor type) is
consistent with current needs, it would be
advisable to verify its performance. The only way
to ensure that armor purchased to a prior edition
of the NIJ standard conforms to the current
requirements of NIJ Standard-0101.03 is to test
the armor. The names of NLECTC-approved
independent testing laboratories (and the
individuals to contact to arrange such tests) are
available from NLECTC.

------------------------------

10. Administrative Considerations

Training and Education 

Departments need to train their officers on the
proper care and use of body armor and increase
routine wearing of it. To encourage use,
departments must educate their officers on the
benefits of wearing armor. Possible approaches are
discussed below. Citing the statistical
information provided throughout this document can
also help.

Some departments mandate that officers must wear
armor at all times while on duty. When these
orders are properly enforced, officers usually
wear their armor. However, officers sometimes
ignore these orders and relegate their armor to
their locker or patrol vehicle's trunk.

Some departments find they can increase the
routine use of body armor by taking advantage of
the controlled setting of the police academy.
These departments issue body armor to all recruits
when they report to the academy and require them
to wear it throughout the training period. While
no firm statistics are available, it appears that
such action promotes the routine use of body armor
by recruits when they are assigned to duty.

Another approach is to obtain an officer's
commitment to wear the armor routinely for a
period of at least 1 month. Generally, the officer
realizes that the armor is not as uncomfortable as
expected and continues to wear the armor
thereafter. While the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) is not aware of documented studies,
a consensus seems to exist among most officers
that the armor "softens" after a short period of
wear and becomes more pliable and comfortable.

It is essential that an officer understands that
there is no such thing as bulletproof armor. While
wearing armor routinely can be reassuring to an
officer, the officer must keep in mind that the
armor was selected on the basis of limited threat
protection. Additional protection, including
ballistic helmets, should be worn when an officer
may be exposed to a weapon threat greater than the
protection provided by normal armor.

At the time armor is issued, departments must
ensure that each officer knows the level of
ballistic protection provided by the armor
relative to various weapon threats. Officers also
must know that body armor will not be completely
effective against attack by a knife or other sharp
instrument, such as an ice pick.

Any training program should emphasize the
importance of using good judgment. Departments
should require their officers to read the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime
Reports publication, Law Enforcement Officers
Killed and Assaulted. The incidents described in
that report each year reinforce the importance of
routine use of body armor to protect against
unexpected assaults. The report encourages
officers to recognize that seemingly routine
assignments, such as serving warrants, can end in
armed confrontation.

Issuing Body Armor

Although body armor has been used for more than
two decades, it is still a relatively new
technology when compared to other types of police
equipment. Much remains to be learned concerning
its service life, and efforts continue to devise
nondestructive methods of assessing the ballistic
efficiency of armor that has been worn
extensively.

When issuing body armor, a department's first
obligation is to ensure that armor fits the
officer it is issued to, for fit determines
whether it will be comfortable and, to a large
extent, whether it will be worn. Armor can be
special ordered or tailored for those officers
with unusual body dimensions.

Maintaining accurate property records for all
armor in inventory is essential. At any time, a
department should be able to determine which armor
was issued to each officer and the issue date,
along with the name of the manufacturer, model
number, armor type, and production lot number. The
NIJ standard requires that body armor labels
include a blank line for the date of issuance. The
date should be entered with a permanent marking
pen or stamp.

Proper records will be invaluable if a production
lot is found to be defective after issuance. If a
set of armor is found to be flawed, the department
should inspect all armor from the same production
lot, for the entire lot may be defective. Also, if
armor is purchased from several manufacturers,
departments can compare officer satisfaction and
use experience for the different products. Good
records also can assist in planning for the
purchase of both new and replacement body armor.

Body armor will frequently be returned to
inventory, often as the result of an officer
retiring or accepting other employment. Armor may
sometimes be removed from service because it no
longer fits the individual to whom it was
originally issued. Unless the armor shows signs of
abuse, it may be reissued to another officer. NIJ
strongly recommends that any unit of armor be
carefully inspected prior to reissue. In one
instance, an officer's life was spared only days
after acquiring armor. The armor had been
purchased privately by another officer who sold it
upon leaving the department. The officer whose
life was saved was its fifth owner.

In addition to reissuing armor to full-time
police, a number of departments issue used armor
that has been returned to inventory to members of
their volunteer corps. Any department that has
used but serviceable armor in its inventory should
try to issue it to someone who will wear it.

Donating Serviceable Used Armor 

Departments that buy armor in large quantities--
and that may have routine, scheduled replacement
policies regardless of the armor's condition--may
want to consider donating armor in good condition
to smaller agencies with limited budgets. However,
a department should first check with its legal
adviser or insurance carrier to determine if this
would be permitted under the department's
liability insurance and what waivers the recipient
department would be required to sign.

Disposing of Body Armor

When body armor is no longer serviceable, the
department must dispose of it in a manner that
will prevent illicit use. The majority of
materials used in manufacturing body armor are
either fire-retardant or inherently fireproof, so
incineration is not recommended. Cutting or
shredding is, at best, a difficult and
time-consuming process. Disposal in a public
landfill is not recommended, because of both the
potential for unauthorized parties to obtain the
garments and the environmental concerns caused by
disposing materials that may not be readily
biodegradable.

One possible option involves using the vests in
the door panels of cruisers, behind desks and
partitions in police station work areas, or as
backstop material at indoor firing ranges. Trauma
plates or hard armor inserts are not recommended
for these applications due to potential ricochet
hazards. If retired concealable armor is used for
these applications, the department should remove
ballistic materials from the vehicle or equipment
before selling or disposing of it. Another option
may be to discuss a possible trade-in of old vests
when making a new purchase.

Liability

All administrators are painfully aware of the
frequent lawsuits filed against police
departments. Body armor liability centers on the
protection that ballistic-resistant body armor
does or does not provide. 

In one incident, an officer wearing a vest was
killed from an ambush with a high-powered rifle.
The survivors' suit alleged that the officer did
not know that the armor, intended to protect
against handguns only, was incapable of protecting
against a bullet from a high-powered rifle.

One individual made the fatal mistake of
participating in a live demonstration of body
armor involving a knife. The individual encouraged
an "assailant" to attack with a knife and
subsequently died from wounds received when the
knife penetrated the armor. The distributor had
covered the armor manufacturer's label with a
second label, which stated that the armor would
protect against lesser threats than the rated
threat level. This resulted in a major lawsuit for
compensation against several parties based on the
mistaken assumption that a knife is a lesser
threat than the ballistic threat specified on the
armor label.

NIJ Standard-0101.03 defines levels of ballistic
protection only. A knife is not a ballistic
threat, and when considered in the context of the
level of protection provided by
ballistic-resistant body armor, it is not a lesser
threat--it is an entirely different type of
threat.

Because of incidents such as those described
above, the NIJ standard requires that the
manufacturer clearly label the level of ballistic
protection that the armor is capable of providing
in accordance with the types classified in the
standard. In addition, the standard requires that
the labels on Type I through Type III-A armor
include a warning notice that the armor is not
intended to protect the wearer against rifle fire
and, if appropriate, that the armor is not
intended to protect the wearer from sharp-edged or
pointed instruments. All administrators should
insist on full compliance with the labeling
requirements of the standard.

When an Officer Is Shot

Although there may be no obvious sign of injury,
any officer shot while wearing body armor should
receive prompt medical attention. The medical
staff at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center,
University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore,
states the following:

Officers and police administrators must be aware
of the possibility of blunt trauma injury
sustained behind body armor that has stopped a
ballistic threat, (i.e., not been penetrated). Any
officer who has had their body armor impacted by a
ballistic threat should receive a medical
evaluation as soon as possible. Even though the
officer shows no aftereffects other than soreness
or a bruise, the possibility of serious internal
injury still exists. A prompt medical evaluation
will allow for an assessment of occult serious
injury.

Before the officer returns to duty, the lifesaving
armor must be replaced with a new set. Retire the
armor to a trophy case to advertise gratefully the
protection that it afforded. An officer once
protected will undoubtedly wear body armor
routinely.

Contact the IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors'
Club[registered trademark] (see appendix A) and
inform them of the incident. By sharing this
information as part of the Survivors' Club's
educational efforts, other officers will be made
aware of the benefits of wearing body armor on a
routine basis. As a result, other lives may be
saved.

Epilogue

For more than 25 years, the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) has been committed to ensuring the
safety of the Nation's law enforcement officers
through its research efforts and voluntary
compliance testing program for body armor. The
2,000-plus lives that have been spared as a result
of the use of body armor bears testament to the
fact that, as the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center system's motto
states, "Technology Saves Lives."

The information presented in this guide emphasizes
the importance of thorough planning at every step
in the selection and procurement process. Police
administrators and procurement officials need to
be aware of the many pitfalls that can result from
body armor that is either inadequate or excessive.
Both cases can result in deadly consequences for
the line officer. Ultimately, an agency's goal is
to obtain armor that meets its needs and will be
worn routinely by its officers. One thing is
certain: the only armor that is absolutely
guaranteed to fail to protect the wearer is the
armor that is not worn.

Administrators should adopt policies to encourage
the full-time use of body armor by field
personnel. Field supervisors should set an example
for officers under their command by always wearing
their armor when on duty. All personnel should
receive training regarding body armor's
capabilities and limitations, as well as proper
care methods. All armor should be routinely
inspected and when it is determined that it no
longer fits properly or is no longer serviceable,
it should be replaced immediately.

By disseminating the information in the guide to
the appropriate personnel, it is the National
Institute of Justice's goal to save even more
lives and continue to build upon the success
resulting from its body armor standards and
testing program.

DON'T BECOME ANOTHER STATISTIC--

WEAR YOUR ARMOR!

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Source is International Association of Chiefs
of Police/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club[registered
trademark].

2. The National Institute of Justice is the
successor to the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (LEAA), National Institute of Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ).

3. Write to NLECTC, P.O. Box 1160, Rockville, MD
20849-1160, or call 800-248-2742 or 301-519-5060.

4. Source is National Law Enforcement Officers'
Memorial Fund, Inc.

5. Dean, Bashford, Helmets and Body Armor in
Modern Warfare, New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1920.

6. Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor,
NILECJ-STD-0101.00, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice, March 1972.

7. Chappell, Kevin, "A Death-Defying Business:
Fashion and Fear Fuel Sales of Bulletproof
Clothing," U.S. News & World Report, 123:6 (August
11, 1997):46-47.

8. Source is National Law Enforcement Officers'
Memorial Fund, Inc.

9. Source is the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program

10. Reaves, Brian A. and Pheny Z. Smith, Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics, 1993: Data for Individual State and
Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
September 1995, NCJ-148825.

11. Reaves, Brian A., Police Departments in Large
Cities: 1987, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1989, NCJ-119220.

12. Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor, NIJ
Standard-0101.03, Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April
1987.

13. Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor,
NILECJ-STD-0101.01, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice, December 1978.

14. Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor, NIJ
Standard-0101.02, Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March
1985.

15. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law
Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, Uniform
Crime Reports, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, FBI, Annual.

16. Personal Body Armor Facts Book, DuPont, June
1994.

17. See note 16 above.

18. Frank, Daniel E., Ballistic Tests of Used Body
Armor, NBSIR-86-3444, National Bureau of Standards
(U.S.), August 1986.

19. See note 16 above.

------------------------------

Bibliography

Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor, NILECJ-
STD-0101.00. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice, March 1972.

Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor, NILECJ-
STD-0101.01. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice, December 1978.

Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor, NIJ
Standard-0101.02. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March
1985.

Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor, NIJ
Standard-0101.03. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April
1987.

Body Armor Field Evaluation Test and Evaluation
Plan. Aerospace Report No. ATR-75(7921)-1. June
1975.

Carroll, A. and C. Soderstrom. "A New
Nonpenetrating Ballistic Injury." Annals of
Surgery, 188:6 (December 1978):753-757.

Chappell, Kevin. "A Death-Defying Business:
Fashion and Fear Fuel Sales of Bulletproof
Clothing." U.S. News & World Report, 123:6 (August
11, 1997):46-47.

Clare, V., J. Lewis, A. Mickiewicz, and L.
Sturdivan. Body Armor Blunt Trauma Data. EB-SR-
75016. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
May 1976.

Dean, Bashford. Helmets and Body Armor in Modern
Warfare. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1920.

Equipment Technology Center Bulletins. No. 76-9
and No. 79-3. International Association of Chiefs
of Police, Gaithersburg, MD.

Estey, J. "2,000 Survivors' Club Hits." The Police
Chief (May 1997).

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Law Enforcement
Officers Killed and Assaulted. Uniform Crime
Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, FBI, Annual.

Frank, Daniel E., Ballistic Tests of Used Body
Armor, NBSIR-86-3444, National Bureau of Standards
(U.S.), August 1986.

Goldfarb, M., T. Ciurej, M. Wienstein, and L.
Metker. Body Armor Medical Assessment. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, May 1976.

Limited Production Purchase Description for Body
Armor, Small Arms (Handgun) Protective,
Undergarment. MP-1, LP/P DES 1-78A. Natick, MA:
U.S. Army Natick R&D Command, April 1978. 

Limited Production Purchase Description for Cloth,
Ballistic, Aramid, Water Repellent Treated
Kevlar[registered trademark]. LP/P DES 32-75A.
Natick, MA: U.S. Army Natick R&D Command, March
1978.

Metker, L., R. Prather, P. Coon, C. Swann, C.
Hopkins, and W. Sacco. A Method of Soft Body Armor
Evaluation: Cardiac Testing. Technical Report
ARCSL-TR-78034. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD:
Chemical Systems Laboratory, U.S. Army Armament
Research and Development Command, November 1978.

Model Body Armor Procurement Package. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice,
Technology Assessment Program, January 1990.

Montanarelli, N., C. Hawkins, and L. Shubin.
Lightweight Body Armor for Law Enforcement
Officers. EB-SR-75001. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, March 1975.

NIJ's New Body Armor Initiative. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice,
Technology Assessment Program, November 1993.

Police Body Armor Testing and Summary of
Performance Testing Data. Gaithersburg, MD:
International Association of Chiefs of Police,
December 1978.

Prather, R., C. Swann, and C. Hawkins. Backface
Signature of Soft Body Armors and the Associated
Trauma Effects. Technical Report No. ARCSL-TR-77-
55. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army
Armament Research and Development Command,
November 1977.

Protective Armor Development Program. Vol. I:
Executive Summary. Aerospace Reports No. ATR-
75(7905)-1. Vol. II: Technical Discussion. No.
ATR-75(7906)-1. Vol. III: Appendices. No. ATR-
75(7906)-1, December 1974.

Purchase Description for Jacket, Raid, Small Arms
(Handgun) Protective, D-1. Natick, MA: U.S. Army
Natick R&D Command, August 1978.

Reaves, Brian A. Police Departments in Large
Cities: 1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1989, NCJ-119220.

Reaves, Brian A. and Pheny Z. Smith. Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics, 1993: Data for Individual State and
Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
September 1995, NCJ-148825.

Rodzen, R., C. Ogden, F. Scribano, M. Burns, and
E. Barron. Design, Development and Fabrication of
Full Scale Anatomical Load Distribution Analyzer.
Technical Report No. 73-18-CE. Natick, MA: U.S.
Army Natick Development Center, November 1972.

Soderstrom, C., A. Carroll, and L. Shubin. The
Medical Assessment of a New Soft Body Armor.
Technical Report ARCSL-TR-77-57. Aberdeen Proving
Ground, MD: Chemical Systems Laboratory, U.S. Army
Armament Research and Development Command, January
1978.

V50 Testing. Technical Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center-Rocky Mountain, July 1997.

------------------------------

Appendix A: Resource List

The products, manufacturers, and organizations
discussed in this publication are presented for
informational purposes only and do not constitute
product approval or endorsement by the National
Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice;
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce; or Aspen Systems
Corporation.

For further information on the topics,
organizations, and products discussed in this
publication, please contact the following:

Akzo Nobel Aramid Products Inc.
801-F Blacklawn Road
Conyers, GA 30207
Tel: 800-451-6586
Fax: 770-929-8138
Internet: www.akzonobel.com
Manufacturer of Twaron[registered trademark].

Allied Signal
Spectra Performance Materials
P.O. Box 31
Petersburg, VA 23804
Tel: 800-695-5969
Fax: 804-520-3388
Internet: www.alliedsignal.com
Manufacturer of SPECTRA fibers.

Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. (C.O.P.S.)
P.O. Box 3199
South Highway 5
Camdenton, MO 65020
Tel: 800-784-2677

Fax: 573-346-1414
Internet: www.nationalcops.org
E-mail: cops@nationalcops.org

Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. provides
resources to assist in rebuilding the lives of
surviving family members of law enforcement
officers killed in the line of duty, as determined
by Federal criteria. Furthermore, COPS provides
training to law enforcement agencies on survivor
victimization issues and educates the public about
the need to support the law enforcement profession
and its survivors.

DSM High Performance Fibers, BV
Eisterweg 3
6422 PN Heerlen, the Netherlands
Tel: 31-45-5436767
Fax: 31-45-5426538
Manufacturers of Dyneema[registered trademark]

DuPont Advanced Fibers Systems
Spruance Plant
P.O. Box 27001
Richmond, VA 23261
Tel: 800-453-8527
Fax: 804-383-4120
Internet: www.dupont.com/afs
Manufacturer of Kevlar[registered trademark]
products.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
Criminal Justice Information Service Division
Program Support
1000 Custer Hollow Road
Clarksburg, WV 26306
Tel: 304-625-4995
Internet: www.fbi.gov/publish.htm
Statistics on law enforcement officers killed and
assaulted.

International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP)
515 N. Washington Street

Alexandria, VA 22314-2357
Tel: 800-843-4227
Fax: 703-836-4543
Internet: www.theiacp.org
Model policies available from IACP on a wide range
of law enforcement issues, including body armor.

IACP/DuPont
Kevlar Survivors' Club[registered trademark]
5401 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23234
Tel: 800-441-2746 or 804-383-3853
Fax: 804-383-2477
Contact: Anna Knight, Club Administrator, or Bill
Brierley, Law Enforcement Consultant
Maintains the latest statistics on body armor
"saves."

National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)
1410 Donelson Pike, #A17
Nashville, TN 37217
Tel: 615-399-0900
Fax: 615-399-0400
Internet: www.grandlodgefop.org
E-mail: glfop@grandlodgefop.org
The FOP supports the routine use of body armor by
all of its members.

National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund,
Inc.
605 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: 202-737-3400
Fax: 202-737-3405
Internet: www.1nleomf.com
E-mail: nleomcwf@erols.com
Contact: Craig W. Floyd
Honors all law enforcement officers killed in the
line of duty.

National Rifle Association (NRA)
Law Enforcement Activities Division
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030-9400

Tel. 703-267-1628
Internet: www.nra.org/law-enf/NRA-LAWENF.html
Contact: Drianne Perry
Through the NRA, selected body armor manufacturers
offer discounts on their products to law
enforcement officers who are NRA members.

The National "WE CARE" Foundation
P.O. Box 117617
Carrollton, TX 75011-7617
Tel: 972-492-4189
E-mail: wecare1@airmail.net
A nonprofit organization established in 1990 by
the Law Enforcement Television Network (LETN) to
assist police officers who are required to
purchase their own body armor, but cannot afford
to do so. Funds for the program are generated
through the use of the Law Enforcement Visa card.
A donation is made to the program every time a
cardholder makes a purchase with this card. Random
drawings are held to determine the recipients of
the vests.

Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program
Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Tel: 888-744-6513 or 202-307-0635
Fax: 202-307-3373
Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html/specprog.htm
The PSOB program provides financial benefits for
survivors of officers killed in the line of duty
and for officers permanently and totally disabled
in the line of duty.

------------------------------

Appendix B: Frequently Asked Questions

The staff at the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) handle
thousands of calls from the criminal justice
community through our 800-number Hotline Center
and through the Internet (www.nlectc.org). Below
are some of the questions that occur most
frequently. Your suggestions and questions are
welcome.

Q. We're going to purchase body armor in the near
future. Any advice or suggestions?
A. NLECTC has an informational package of
publications on the topic of body armor available
at no cost. To obtain a package, call NLECTC at
800-248-2742 or 301-519-5060.

Q. How does body armor work?
A. When a bullet strikes a body armor panel, the
fibers absorb and disperse the energy of the
impact across a generalized area. Most concealable
body armor is made of a number of layers. These
layers assist in the energy dispersion process and
help to reduce the effects of blunt trauma caused
by the force of impact energy that is delivered by
the projectile.

Q. How long does body armor last?
A. There are a number of factors that can
influence the service life of body armor. The
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has done
research (detailed in the publication entitled Old
Armor Tests As Good As New and available from
NLECTC at 800-248-2742 or 301-519-5060) that
indicates that age is not the only determining
factor. Other factors to consider include: how
regularly the armor was worn; how it was cared
for; whether the armor fit the wearer properly
(most people lose or gain weight over a period of
years); and the overall condition of the armor (do
the fasteners still work properly, and so on). We
encourage departments that issue body armor to
have a routine inspection program for body armor,
just as they would for weapons, vehicles, and
other types of issued equipment.

Q. What types of materials are used to make body
armor?
A. There are a number of materials used in the
manufacturing of body armor. Concealable, or
"soft" body armor can be made from a number of
different types of woven or nonwoven materials.
The most recognized of these is Kevlar[registered
trademark], which is made by DuPont. Other
materials include Spectra[registered trademark],
which is made by AlliedSignal, and
Twaron[registered trademark], made by Akzo Nobel.
These materials are manufactured in a variety of
styles and weaves. Hard armor plates can be made
from a number of materials, including metals,
ceramics, and other composite materials.

Q. Which ballistic material is better?
A. Each fiber has its own advantages and
disadvantages. The construction of the vest (what
type or types of materials and the number of
layers of each material used) and the weave of the
fibers can influence the performance of the vest.
To determine which is best for you, look at and
try out a number of vests in the protection level
you desire. When you narrow your choice to several
vests, call NLECTC for the test data. In the end,
it is your choice based on the factors that are
most important to you.

Q. What threat level of armor should I wear?
A. First assess the type of threat you face on a
daily basis. Review data from shooting incidents
in your area, as well as the types of weapons
being confiscated from suspects. Also factor in
what type of sidearm you are carrying; Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report
(UCR) data indicate that approximately one in six
officers killed in the line of duty were shot with
their own weapon. Other considerations are: the
climate in which you work, typical duty
assignment, and personal preference considerations
(comfort and fit). Again, the decision is
ultimately yours.

Q. Which manufacturer makes the best body armor?
A. NLECTC tests body armor from many manufacturers
to verify their products meet minimum performance
standards necessary for police use. The test does
not compare one manufacturer or their products
with another. We recommend that you look at armor
from a number of manufacturers. Inquire about
their customer service/support, and talk with
other agencies about the armor they have purchased
and used. Our Consumer Product List gives a
complete listing of manufacturers and models that
comply with NIJ Standard 0101.03. You can also
call NLECTC at 800-248-2742 or 301-519-5060 to get
the most current information on models that comply
with the standard.

Q. What is the best way to care for body armor?
A. Follow the manufacturer's care instructions
provided with your armor or refer to the
instructions on the vest labels. Failure to follow
these instructions may damage the ballistic
performance capabilities of the armor. NLECTC has
two publications that discuss body armor care and
maintenance: Selection and Application Guide to
Police Body Armor and Body Armor User's Guide,
which can be obtained by calling NLECTC at 800-
248-2742 or 301-519-5060.

Q. What are trauma plates?
A. Trauma plates are devices that can be added to
the vest over a localized area (most commonly
center mass of the torso) to increase the wearer's
protection against blunt trauma injuries. Trauma
plates can be made of a hard substance, such as
metal wrapped in rubber or ballistic fabric, or
they can be made of layers of ballistic fabric,
similar to a vest panel. Some manufacturers even
build trauma plates into the vest panel itself.

Q. What new technologies have been developed for
body armor?
A. Over the last 20 years, new materials and
fabrics have been introduced that have contributed
significantly to the wearability of armor. Body
armor manufacturers have also made a number of
advances in armor design technology, resulting in
body armor having more flexibility, weighing less,
and ultimately being more comfortable for the
wearer.

Q. How do I dispose of my old vest?
A. Check with your department to see if they have
a policy regarding the disposal of used body
armor. Whenever possible, a used vest that is
still in serviceable condition should be issued or
donated to an officer who otherwise would not have
a vest. If you are not comfortable donating your
vest, contact the manufacturer of your vest to
determine if they will dispose of it. Some
agencies have also used retired armor in the door
panels of police cars or special operations
vehicles.

Q. Will my armor stop other threats such as
knives?
A. NIJ Standard-0101.03 only addresses the
ballistic resistance of body armor, or the armor's
ability to stop a specified bullet (depending on
threat level classification). At the present time,
NIJ does not have a formal testing procedure for
stab or cut resistance. Some manufacturers offer
vests that are designed to protect the wearer from
certain sharp-edged or pointed instruments;
however, check the label on the ballistic panel of
your vest or check with the manufacturer of your
vest to see if it is intended to provide this type
of protection. If it indicates that it is, ask the
manufacturer to provide you with their independent
test results for stab resistance.

Q. How is armor submitted for testing?
A. The manufacturer submitting a vest for testing
must first negotiate a testing contract with an
NIJ-approved testing laboratory. Neither NIJ nor
NLECTC accepts any payment for testing services.
The manufacturer then submits six (type I through
IIIA) or four (type III and IV) samples to NLECTC,
where they are examined for workmanship and
labeling requirements, which are defined in NIJ
Standard-0101.03. If the samples successfully
complete this examination, they are sent to the
approved laboratory that the manufacturer has
negotiated the testing contract with. The
laboratory performs the ballistic test in
accordance with the standard and prepares a report
of the test. The samples and the report are
returned to NLECTC, where they are again examined
and compared to the laboratory report. If the
armor complies with the standard, a letter is
issued to the manufacturer for that model and the
model is listed on future editions of the Police
Body Armor Consumer Product List (CPL).

Q. Who tests the armor?
A. Only NIJ-approved independent testing
laboratories are recognized as official testing
facilities for compliance testing to NIJ
Standard-0101.03. Call NLECTC for a complete list
of approved testing laboratories. 

Q. How does a laboratory obtain NIJ approval to
conduct body armor testing?
A. To become an NIJ-approved laboratory, the
laboratory must submit an application (available
from NLECTC) that will be reviewed by NIJ to
determine if the laboratory is technically capable
of performing the testing. NLECTC will conduct an
onsite inspection that includes witnessing the
testing of actual samples. The laboratory prepares
a report of the test and returns the tested
samples and report to NLECTC, where they are
checked for accuracy. If the laboratory
successfully completes all of these requirements,
NIJ will issue a letter to the laboratory
notifying it that it is an NIJ-approved laboratory
and is authorized to conduct testing in accordance
with NIJ Standard-0101.03. Manufacturers and other
interested parties will also be notified of the
laboratory's status. NIJ accepts applications from
interested laboratories on a continuing basis.
Laboratories seeking NIJ-approved status should
contact NLECTC at 800-248-2742 or 301-519-5060.

------------------------------

Appendix C: The Effect of Body Armor on the Risk
of Fatality in Felonious Assaults on Police
Officers*

The move by law enforcement to equip its officers
with high-quality body armor to better protect
them in the event of an assault with a firearm is
among the most visible and important contributions
to safety in the history of policing. There has
never been any serious debate raised about the
logic or wisdom of equipping officers with body
armor. While body armor is often described as
uncomfortable, its use is nonetheless encouraged
by most departments and required by many.

Past studies have attempted to determine the
actual effectiveness of body armor in protecting
the lives of law enforcement officers. These
studies could not quantify the protective
capabilities of body armor due to a lack of
sufficient research design. Fundamentally, the
research has been used to show the high percentage
of deceased officers who were not wearing body
armor at the time they were slain. What these
studies attempted, but failed to quantify, was the
actual protection provided by body armor.

A recently completed FBI study on protection
provided by body armor has shown that the risk of
fatality for officers assaulted with a firearm
while not wearing body armor is 14 times higher
than for officers wearing body armor. The study
methodology, known as case-control design, was
used to quantify the protection provided by body
armor. This approach has been used in medical and
public health research such as in the early 1950s
and 1980s when it was used to identify the risks
associated with smoking and toxic shock syndrome.
In this study, it is applied to identify the risk
of fatality associated with not wearing protective
body armor during an assault with a firearm. This
study compares a group of officers who survived an
assault with a firearm to a group of officers
assaulted with a firearm and slain. Members of
both groups were shot with a firearm in the upper
torso area; the area traditionally covered by body
armor.

A comprehensive FBI database on law enforcement
officers killed in the line of duty includes
information on whether an officer was wearing body
armor at the time of the attack. For this study,
cases were selected based on the criterion of
whether the officer was shot in an area that could
be covered by conventional body armor, i.e., front
and rear upper torso. Officers fatally wounded in
the head, extremities, or other areas not
traditionally covered by body armor were excluded.
A group of 25 officers feloniously killed in the
line of duty was randomly selected from an
available 133 officers who met the initial
criteria.

A similar selection process was used to select
officers who survived an assault with a firearm.
During 1992, the FBI expanded its data collection
and solicited information on law enforcement
officers who were seriously assaulted in the line
of duty and survived. From the cases submitted to
the FBI, a small comparison group was produced.
This comparison group consisted of 25 officers who
survived after being shot with firearms in the
upper torso. The officers in the separate groups
differed only on the survival outcome of their
assaults. By comparing the survival outcome of the
officers based on their use of body armor, a risk
factor can be computed for the odds of fatality
for officers shot in the upper torso while not
wearing body armor.

In the following table, the relative risk of
fatality for officers not wearing body armor is
computed. The first column lists the total, 25
officers, who did not survive an assault with a
firearm. As shown, only four of the slain officers
were wearing body armor at the time of the
assault. In contrast, for officers that survived,
18 wore armor at the time of the assault. The odds
of fatality for officers not wearing armor is
computed as (21/7), or 3. The odds of fatality for
officers wearing armor is computed as (4/18), or
.22. To arrive at the relative risk between the
two groups, the odds of fatality while not wearing
armor are divided by the odds of fatality while
wearing armor (3/.22), or 13.5. This number can be
interpreted as the odds, or relative risk, of
fatality. For an officer shot in the torso while
not wearing body armor, the relative risk of
fatality is 14 times higher than for an officer
who is wearing body armor. Equation 1 shows the
computation of the relative risk.

While the absolute risk of fatality could not be
computed in this study, it is clear that officers
who are not wearing armor at the time of an
assault with a firearm are at significantly
greater risk of fatality than officers who are
wearing body armor at the time of assault.
Further, this relative risk of term (Y) is not
influenced by sample size, so it is likely that
this relative risk of fatality would have been
observed in samples of any size.

The results of this study affirm what law
enforcement trainers have long been telling
officers: body armor saves lives. By wearing body
armor, a law enforcement officer can significantly
increase his or her chances of surviving an
assault with a firearm.

*Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports: Law
Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1994. 

------------------------------

Appendix D: Model Procurement Specifications

Terms of agreement

A) Specific Quantity

The (jurisdiction) intends to purchase a total of
(number spelled out) (number) units of body armor.
Of this total, (number spelled out) (number) shall
be specially designed for issue to female
officers. The successful bidder further agrees to
supply the same model of armor at the unit price
cost of the above quantity order for an additional
period of (select appropriate period of time)
months for issue to new officers or replacement
purposes.

B) Open End Purchase Agreement (Term Contract)

The (jurisdiction) anticipates the purchase of a
total of (number spelled out) (number) units of
body armor during a (appropriate period of
time)-month period beginning on or about (date).
During this period, purchase orders will be issued
for armor as needed at the contract unit price. It
is estimated that (number) percent of the armor
purchased will be specifically designated for
issue to female officers. The term of this
agreement shall be (appropriate period of time)
months; however, the (jurisdiction) does not
guarantee the purchase of any specific or minimum
quantity of armor during the term of this
agreement. The (jurisdiction) may, at its option
and subject to agreement by the contractor, extend
the term of this agreement at the same contract
unit price for an additional period of
(appropriate period of time) months.

Bidding and award

Bids shall be submitted (specify standard
departmental regulations; i.e., departmental form,
letter quotation, etc.).

Bids will be accepted only for armor that has been
tested by an independent testing laboratory as
part of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center (NLECTC) body armor
compliance-testing program and found to fully
comply with the requirements of NIJ Standard-
0101.03 (or current edition).

The (jurisdiction) reserves the right to reject
any or all bids in whole or in part as it is
deemed in the best interest of the department.

In determining the most advantageous bid, the
(jurisdiction) reserves the right to consider
quality, workmanship, service, and dependability
of the product and manufacturer, independent of
price.

The successful bidder agrees to provide (name of
manufacturer) model (designation) armor properly
identified on the label of each unit of armor.

Note: The model selected, which must be verified
as having been tested by a NLECTC-approved testing
laboratory and found to comply with NIJ Standard-
0101.03, must be incorporated in this document or
separate purchase document at the time of award of
said contract.

Pre-bid conference

Specify date, time, and location. If attendance is
a condition of bid acceptance, this must be noted.

Invoicing and delivery

Specify consistent with the normal procurement
practices of the jurisdiction.

Warranty and insurance

Each unit of armor provided under this contract
shall be warranteed for a minimum of (number
spelled out) (number) years to be free from all
defects in materials and workmanship.

Each unit of armor provided under this contract
shall be warranteed for a minimum of (number
spelled out) (number) years to meet the
ballistic-resistant and deformation requirements
of NIJ Standard-0101.03 (or such future edition of
NIJ Standard-0101.03 that forms the basis of the
contract resulting from this bid).

Manufacturers shall have a product liability
performance insurance policy in a minimum amount
of (specify per incident and total liability
limits, and period of coverage as appropriate
based upon recommendations of department's legal
counsel and insurance commission). All insurance
policies shall conform to the rules and
regulations of (appropriate jurisdiction).

Armor specification

Each unit of armor shall be new, unused,
constructed of the highest quality materials, and
shall:

A) Be constructed identically to the original
model tested by NLECTC and found to comply with
the minimum performance requirements for Type
(appropriate classification) armor as specified in
NIJ Standard-0101.03 (or current edition).

B) Be labeled in accordance with the requirements
of NIJ Standard-0101.03, clearly identifying the
exact manufacturer model and, if appropriate,
style specified in the contract document.

The manufacturer may, at its option, include in
addition a catalog number for supplier or
distributor convenience, provided that such number
is properly identified and totally separate from
the model/style designation line. Labels shall
remain readable throughout the warranty period.

C) Be designed to be concealable under the
standard (jurisdiction) uniform shirt. Provide
full torso coverage, with front-to-back side
overlap of ballistic panels. (Alternately, state
other side protection requirements or other
intended manner of use, such as a specific type of
outerwear, i.e., tactical vest.)

D) Provide adjustment for the chest, waist, and
shoulders with the minimum relief under arms,
neck, and shoulder necessary to prevent chafing of
the wearer.

E) Be designed in such a manner as to prevent the
armor from "riding up" on the wearer during normal
duty activities.

F) All closure, fastening, or accessory attachment
devices should be made of materials that do not
present a "secondary projectile" or "ricochet"
hazard if struck by a bullet.

G) Incorporate a carrier for the ballistic element
that is (appropriate choice) in color, and the
coloring shall be permanent and not "bleed" onto
other garments.

H) Be free from any defects affecting durability,
serviceability, appearance, or the safety of the
user. Workmanship and construction details,
cutting, stitching, and finishing shall be in all
cases in accordance with first-class commercial
textile standard practices for the intended
purpose.

Items to be submitted with bid

A) Sample of armor model being bid, labeled in
accordance with the requirements above (item B,
armor specifications).

Note: The sample provided by the successful bidder
will become the property of (jurisdiction) and
retained in archives for comparison with armor
delivered under the resulting contract. Samples
provided by unsuccessful bidders will be returned
F.O.B. (jurisdiction and shipping address) upon
request following contract award.

B) Proof that the armor model offered has been
tested by a NLECTC-approved laboratory and that
NLECTC has found that model to be in full
compliance with the requirements of NIJ Standard-
0101.03.

C) Proof of liability insurability.

D) List of customers to whom the bidder has
satisfactorily sold armor during the past three
(3) years.

Termination of agreement

See commentary.

Acceptance testing

See commentary.

Appendix E: Body Armor Inspection Sheet

Date:_____________________________________________
Manufacturer:_____________________________
Model/Style:_________________________
Male__________________ Female__________________ 
Size_________________________
Serial
Number:___________________________________________
Issued
To:_______________________________________________
Inspected By:
__________________________________________________

Yes   No

A. Labeling:

____  ____ 1. Is a label securely attached to each
part of the carrier and ballistic panels?

____  ____ 2. Is information on the labels
legible?

____  ____ 3. Does the model comply with NIJ
Standard-0101.03?

B. General Condition/Appearance

____  ____ 1. Does the carrier or permanent cover
have any visible rips/tears/holes? 

____  ____ 2. Is the armor relatively clean and
free of dirt and debris?

____  ____ 3. Are closure devices securely
attached to the vest and operating properly?

____  ____ 4. If ballistic element is encased in a
nonremovable cover, is any ballistic material
(fabric) exposed?

____  ____ 5. If ballistic element is not encased
in a nonremovable cover, is the ballistic material
frayed?

____  ____ 6. Are there creases in the armor?

____  ____ 7. Is the armor free from odor?

C. Care and Maintenance 

____  ____ 1. Does the officer responsible for the
vest understand and follow the manufacturer's care
and cleaning instructions?

____  ____ 2. Does the officer responsible for the
vest understand and follow department policy
regarding care, maintenance, and wearing of vest
(if applicable)? 

D. Size/Fit

____  ____ 1. Does the vest fit the officer
properly and securely?

E. Overall Evaluation:

__ Excellent/New __ Good __ Fair __ Poor

Comments:

------------------------------

Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology 
Advisory Council

Member List

Chair: Colonel Carl R. Baker
Vice Chair: Commissioner Martin F. Horn
Vice Chair: Harlin R. McEwen

Patrick Ahlstrom
Director
Colorado Department of Public Safety
Denver, Colorado

Francisco J. Alarcon
Director
California Youth Authority
Sacramento, California

Alan Anthony
Deputy Director
Utah Department of Corrections
Division of Field Operations
Murray, Utah

Col. Carl R. Baker
Chief of Police
Chesterfield County Police Department
Chesterfield, Virginia

Jim T. Barbee
Correctional Programs Specialist
National Institute of Corrections
Jails Division
Longmont, Colorado

Chief Kenneth Bayless
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Whittier, California

Capt. Bob Beach
Commander
Fairfax County Police Department
Fairfax, Virginia

Sheriff Kevin Beary
Orange County Sheriff's Office
Orlando, Florida

Sgt. Michael E. Beaver
Wheeling Police Department
Wheeling, West Virginia

Barbara A. Broderick
Director
Adult Services
Arizona Supreme Court
Phoenix, Arizona

Bob Brown
Chief
National Academy of Corrections
Longmont, Colorado

Jeanette Bucklew
Deputy Director
Iowa Department of Corrections
Division of Community Correctional
Services
Des Moines, Iowa

Sam Cabral
President
International Union of Police Associations
AFL-CIO
Alexandria, Virginia

Commissioner Donal Campbell
Tennessee Department of Corrections
Nashville, Tennessee

Chief Robert E. Cansler
Concord Police Department
Concord, North Carolina

Nick Cartwright
Manager
Canadian Police Research Center
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

Steven F. Chianesi
Associate Director
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Management Information Systems
Cranston, Rhode Island

Chief Merino Ciccone
Rome Police Department
Rome, New York

Commissioner Edward L. Cohn
Indiana Department of Corrections
Indianapolis, Indiana

Brian Coleman
Director 
Police Scientific Development Branch
Woodcock Hill, Sandridge
St. Albans, Hertfordshire
United Kingdom

Larry Cothran
Executive Officer
California Department of Corrections
Sacramento, California

G. Ronald Courington
Director
Management Information
New York State Department of Corrections
Albany, New York

Superintendent Richard Cox
Milwaukee County House of Corrections
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Anthony Crook
Special Agent in Charge
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Voice Radio Branch
Gaithersburg, Maryland

Deputy Chief Patrick J. Devlin
Office of Technology and Systems
Development
New York City Police Department
New York, New York

Sgt. Kirk DiLorenzo
St. Louis Park Police Department
St. Louis Park, Minnesota

George Drake
Deputy Region Manager
New Mexico Corrections Department

Adult Probation and Parole Division
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Chief Richard Emerson
Chula Vista Police Department
Chula Vista, California

Sheriff Charles Foti
Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office
New Orleans, Louisiana

Chief E. Ron Frazier
AMTRAK Police Department
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Gilbert Gallegos
National President
Fraternal Order of Police
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Doreen Geiger
Assistant Director for Policy
Washington State Department of
Corrections
Olympia, Washington

James A. Gondles, Jr.
Executive Director
American Correctional Association
Lanham, Maryland

Chief Reuben M. Greenberg
Charleston Police Department
Charleston, South Carolina

Dr. Michael Greenwood
Program Manager
Administrative Office of U. S. Courts
Washington, D.C.

Chief Timothy Grimmond
El Segundo Police Department
El Segundo, California

Robert Guy
Deputy Director
North Carolina Department of Correction
Division of Adult Probation and Parole
Raleigh, North Carolina

Earl Hardy
Highway Safety Specialist
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Washington, D.C.

Lt. Sid Heal
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Emergency Operations Bureau
Los Angeles, California

Capt. Frank Hecht
Pima County Sheriff's Office
Tucson, Arizona

Joan Higgins
Assistant Commissioner
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Office of Detention and Deportation
Washington, D.C.

Chief James Hill
New Jersey Port Authority Transit Police
Camden, New Jersey

F. M. Hite
Operations and Training Manager
Division of Field Operations
Virginia Department of Corrections
Roanoke, Virginia

Chief Stanley E. Hook
Smyrna Police Department
Smyrna, Georgia

Commissioner Martin F. Horn
Department of Corrections
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

Capt. Richard Hough, Sr.
Enforcement Bureau Administrator
Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office
Milton, Florida

Capt. Geoffrey C. Hunter
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Metro Transit Police Department
Washington, D.C.

Stephen Ingley
Executive Director
American Jail Association
Hagerstown, Maryland

Maris Jaunakais
Head, Forensic Sciences Division
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Washington, D.C.

Jim Jones
Executive Assistant to the Director
Virginia Department of Corrections
Richmond, Virginia

W.L. Kautzky
Director
Iowa Department of Corrections
Des Moines, Iowa

Sheriff Aaron D. Kennard
Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department
Salt Lake City, Utah

R. Gil Kerlikowske
Deputy Director
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Ed King
Manager
Idaho State Department of Corrections
Construction & Maintenance
Boise, Idaho

Chief Robert E. Langston
U.S. Park Police
Washington, D.C.

Dr. Henry Lee
Director
Connecticut State Police Forensic
Laboratory
Meriden, Connecticut

Richard C. Legore
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Information Resources Division
Quantico, Virginia

Kevin Lothridge
Laboratory Director
Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory
Largo, Florida

Dr. Art Lucero
Parole Administrator
California Department of Corrections
Orange County District
Anaheim, California

Kenneth T. Lyons
National President
International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Quincy, Massachusetts

James Mahan
Senior Technologist
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of Security Technology
Washington, D.C.

Nancy Martin
Chief Probation Officer

Cook County Department of Adult
Probation
Chicago, Illinois

Moses McAllister, Jr.
Social Services Director
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Washington, D.C.

John McCalla
Assistant Division Chief
U.S. Secret Service
Technical Security Division P&D
Washington, D.C.

Dr. Edward McDonough
Deputy Chief Medical Examiner
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
Farmington, Connecticut

Harlin R. McEwen
Deputy Assistant Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Washington, D.C.

Lawrence S. Meyer
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy
Firearms Training Unit
Quantico, Virginia

Col. David B. Mitchell
Superintendent
Maryland State Police
Pikesville, Maryland

Michael Moore
Director
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Columbia, South Carolina

Ron Morell
Training Administrator
Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council
Pittsford, Vermont

Aldine "Bubby" N. Moser
Executive Director
National Sheriffs' Association
Alexandria, Virginia

Chief Dennis Nowicki
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Charlotte, North Carolina

Maj. Roger L. Payne
Zone Commander
New Mexico State Police
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Sheriff Carl R. Peed
Fairfax County Sheriff's Office
Fairfax, Virginia

Commander Avi Peer
Head, R&D
Israel National Police Headquarters
Operations Department
Jerusalem, Israel

Dr. Charles S. Petty
Transplant Services
University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center
Dallas, Texas

Dimitria D. Pope
Assistant to the Executive Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Community Justice Assistance Division
Austin, Texas

Sgt. John S. Powell
Communications Coordinator
University of California Police Department
Berkeley, California

Rex J. Rakow
Director 
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana

Sheriff Gayle E. Ray
Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Nashville, Tennessee

Jerry Reiger
Director
Oklahoma Department of Juvenile Affairs
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Commissioner Hank Risley
Department of Corrections
Concord, New Hampshire

Peggy Ritchie-Matsumoto
Deputy Director, Systems Strategist
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
Columbus, Ohio

Leon Roberts
U.S. Marshals Service
Information Technology Services
Arlington, Virginia

Col. Michael D. Robinson
Director
Michigan State Police
East Lansing, Michigan

Chief Thomas J. Roche
Gates Police Department
Rochester, New York

Charles L. Ryan
Deputy Director
Prison Operations
Arizona Department of Correction
Phoenix, Arizona

Stephen Schroffel
Director
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Research and Development
Washington, D.C.

Capt. Lawrence F. Seligman
Commander
Pima County Sheriff's Department
Tucson, Arizona

Harry K. Singletary
Secretary
Florida Department of Corrections
Tallahassee, Florida

Capt. Kathryn Stevens
Allen County Sheriff's Department
Allen County Courthouse
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Robert Stewart
Executive Director
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives
Alexandria, Virginia

Brad Stimson
National Research Council of Canada
ICPET
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

Richard Stroker
Deputy Director
South Carolina Department of Parole
Field Services Division
Columbia, South Carolina

Sheriff Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.
Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department
Littleton, Colorado

Robert Tegarden
Assistant Director
Southeastern Public Safety Institute
St. Petersburg Junior College
St. Petersburg, Florida

William A. Temple
Special Agent in Charge
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Technical Operations Branch
Rockville, Maryland

Morris Thigpen
Director
National Institute of Corrections
Washington, D.C.

Corp. David Thomas
Montgomery County Police Department
Domestic Violence Unit
Rockville, Maryland

Sharon Thornton
Senior Public Service Administrator
Illinois State Police
Springfield, Illinois

Richard Turner
Director
Vermont Department of Corrections
Correctional Services
Waterbury, Vermont

George Vose
Director
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Cranston, Rhode Island

Commissioner Eugene P. Walker, Ph.D.
Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice
Atlanta, Georgia

The Honorable Patricia West
Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court 
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Reginald A. Wilkinson
Director
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Columbus, Ohio

David Williams
Facilities Planner
New York Department of Correctional Services
Albany, New York

Len Witke
Director
Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Division of Facilities Management
Madison, Wisconsin

------------------------------

National Armor Advisory Board
Member List

Chair: R. Gil Kerlikowske

Stephen Armellino**
President
U.S. Armor Corporation
Santa Fe Springs, California

Col. Carl R. Baker
Chief of Police
Chesterfield County Police Department
Chesterfield, Virginia

David Boyd
Director
Office of Science and Technology
National Institute of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Deputy Dan Callahan
Arlington County Sheriff's Office
Arlington, Virginia

Larry Cothran
Executive Officer
California Department of Corrections
Technology Transfer Committee
Sacramento, California

Brad Ditchfield**
Vice President
Product Development
Safariland Ltd., Inc.
Ontario, California

Chris Donnellan
Legislative Director
International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Arlington, Virginia

John Dottore
Business Manager
Civilian Ballistics
DuPont Company
Spruance Plant
Richmond, Virginia

G.J. "Tom" Dragone*
Director
Product Development
American Body Armor & Equipment Co.
Jacksonville, Florida

Joseph Fernandez**
Vice President
Guardian Technologies International
Dulles, Virginia

David Hand
Sales Account Manager
Akzo Nobel Fibers Inc.
Conyers, Georgia

R. Gil Kerlikowske
Deputy Director
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Harold Kunz
3rd Vice President
Fraternal Order of Police
Chicago, Illinois

John McCalla
Senior Security Engineer
U.S. Secret Service, TSD/P&D
Washington, D.C.

Lawrence S. Meyer
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Firearms Training Unit
Quantico, Virginia

Linn Murray
Ballistic Engineer
AlliedSignal, Inc.
Petersburg, Virginia

Leonard Rosen*
President
Protective Apparel Corporation of America (PACA)
Norris, Tennessee

Chief Darrell L. Sanders
Frankfort Police Department
Frankfort, Illinois

Robert Scully
Executive Director
National Association of Police Organizations
Washington, D.C.

Dieter Wachter
Vice President, High Performance Fabrics
Clark-Schwebel, Inc.
Anderson, South Carolina

*Term expires 12/31/98.

**Term expires 12/31/99.

------------------------------

For more information on the National Institute of
Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
800-851-3420
e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To access the World Wide Web site, go to 
http://www.ncjrs.org

If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.