Title: Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor
Series: NIJ Guide
Author: National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
Published: National Institute of Justice, November 2001
Subject: Law enforcement: police equipment, law enforcement general
121 pages
257,000 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
NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).

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

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

Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor
NIJ Guide 100-01 (Update to NIJ Guide 100-98)

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

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

John Ashcroft
Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels
Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart
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 Personal Body Armor

NIJ Guide 100-01 (Replaces Selection and Application Guide to Police
Body Armor, NIJ Guide 100-98)

November 2001

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

NCJ 189633

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

National Institute of Justice

Sarah V. Hart
Director

Office of Science and Technology

Wendy Howe
Program Manager, Standards and Testing

Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is not
intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create
any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in any
matter civil or criminal.

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.

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

NIJ is pleased to release this updated edition of NIJ's guide to selecting
body armor. The update incorporates several important changes:

First, it includes information from the new Ballistic Resistance of Personal
Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.04, which was the result of 3 years of
study, research, and collaboration by the Office of Law Enforcement
Standards (OLES) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
It also contains information on NIJ's new Stab Resistance of Personal
Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00, which was developed by OLES in
conjunction with the Police Scientific Development Branch of the United
Kingdom and released in September 2000.

Second, the title has changed from the Selection and Application Guide to
Police Body Armor to the Selection and Application Guide to Personal
Body Armor. The title change reflects recognition of the need for
corrections officers to wear body armor just as law enforcement officers
do.

We at NIJ, the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center (NLECTC) system, and OLES are excited about the forward
progress and momentum that these new standards will produce in body
armor technology.

We hope criminal justice agencies will use this guide as they select
protective armor that is suited to their individual needs.

Your comments on the usefulness of this document or suggestions for
future editions are welcome. Please send them to NLECTC, c/o Selection
and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor, P.O. Box 1160,
Rockville, MD 20849- 1160; fax to 301-519-5149; or e-mail to
asknlectc@nlectc.org.

Sarah V. Hart
Director
National Institute of Justice

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

Table of Contents

Foreword

1. Overview of the Guide

2. A History of Body Armor

 -- The History of NIJ's Body Armor Testing Program

 -- The Use of Body Armor Today

3. Why Wear Body Armor?

 -- The Cost

 -- The Ballistic Threat

 -- The Stab Threat

 -- Not Just Bullets and Knives

 -- 2,500 Reasons

4. Body Armor Construction

 -- How Does Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor Work?

 -- How Does Stab-Resistant Body Armor Work?

 -- Construction Methods

 -- Model and Style Designation

 -- ISO 9000

 -- Materials Used

5. The NIJ Standards

 -- Developing the NIJ Standard for Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor

 -- The Current Standard, NIJ Standard-0101.04

 -- Introducing Stab-Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-
0115.00

 -- Cooperative Efforts Between NLECTC and Industry

 -- The Standards Review Process

6. Ballistic-Resistant Personal Body Armor

 -- Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection

 -- The "Takeaway" Problem

 -- The Corrections Threat

 -- Armor Classifications for Ballistic-Resistant Armor

 -- Requirements

 -- Performance Testing

 -- V50 Testing

 -- Ballistic Limit Testing

 -- Acceptance and In-Service Testing

7. Stab-Resistant Personal Body Armor

 -- Armor Classifications for Stab-Resistant Armor

 -- Developing the Testing Procedure

 -- Overtest

8. Armor Selection

 -- Armor Styles

 -- Comfort and Fit

 -- Coverage

9. Purchasing Body Armor

 -- Overview

 -- The Procurement Process

 -- Ensuring Compliance Status

 -- Model Procurement Specifications

 -- Protection/Testing Considerations

10. Maintaining Body Armor

 -- Body Armor Life Expectancy

 -- Testing Used Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor by Departments

11. 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. 25 Questions and Answers About Personal Body Armor

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

Appendix F. Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory
Council

Appendix G. National Armor Advisory Board Member List

Appendix H. About the National Institute of Justice

Appendix I. About the Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and
Testing Program

Appendix J. About the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center System

Appendix K. About the Office of Law Enforcement Standards

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

1. Overview of the Guide

Lightweight body armor has been widely available for use by law
enforcement personnel for more than 25 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 2,500[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). The standard for ballistic resistance of body armor was developed
28 years ago and has gone through four revisions. In September 2000, NIJ
introduced its standard for stab and puncture resistance of body armor. 

Body armor is tested as a part of the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) voluntary equipment testing
program to determine compliance with the NIJ standards, 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 standards is
available from NLECTC through its Web site, JUSTNET, at
http://www.justnet.org.[3]

While body armor is a household word in the criminal justice 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 armor selection from the
variety of styles available, together with the proper care of armor in
service. The NIJ standards are discussed in detail, as well as the use of the
standards 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.

This guide opens with a history of the development of body armor and
background on the lives it has saved. The heart of the guide--how to
proceed to select and purchase body armor--begins with chapter 6 and
includes chapters explaining how to assess the level of protection needed,
things to think about when selecting armor, and ways to keep it in proper
working order. An extensive collection of appendixes is available for
reference.

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

2. 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 also was 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 manmade barriers, such as
stone or masonry walls; manmade fortifications such as trenches and
ditches; or natural barriers, such as rocks and trees.

One of the first recorded instances of soft armor use 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, New York City
Deputy Sheriff Isaac Smith, was shot and killed in 1792,[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 is equal to approximately
$1,500 in today's 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, which reported on a vest demonstration
for 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 also were very cumbersome and bulky
and were restricted primarily to military use. It would not be until the late
1960s that new fibers would be discovered that would make today's
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, page 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 the 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, which
was originally developed to replace steel belting in vehicle tires. Lester
Shubin, who served as NIJ Technology Assessment Program Manager
from 1971 to 1991, suspected the new substance might have potential to
greatly improve personal armor. He and Nicholas Montanarelli, then an
Army Land Warfare technology specialist, took a piece of
Kevlar[registered trademark] to a gun range, folded it over a couple of
times, and shot at it. The bullets did not 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 U.S. 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 also were 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--the 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 extreme temperatures, 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 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.

The Use of Body Armor Today

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 ballistic-resistant 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.

While the most common type of threat faced by a police officers is from a
gun, the most common threat a correctional officer is likely to face is from
a knife or ice pick. In response to the needs of the corrections community,
NIJ has developed a performance standard for stab- and puncture-resistant
body armor, through a collaboration of OLES, the U.S. Secret Service, and
the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) in the United Kingdom
(UK). In September 2000, NIJ introduced a performance standard for stab-
and puncture-resistant body armor, Stab Resistance of Personal Body
Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00.

Today, more than 80 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 New York City Deputy Sheriff Isaac Smith in 1792,
more than 15,000 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 do not wear armor usually claim that the bulk and weight of
armor make it uncomfortable. But case studies and statistics 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.

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.)

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, 2001, a total of 2,500 "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, such as car crashes. Forty
percent of the felonious assaults involved firearms, 12 percent represented
cutting or slashing assaults, and 6 percent involved other types of assaults.
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) 1999, the
amount was $143,943. Since 1977, the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA), which administers this program, has received an average of 275
claims each year. In FY99, the PSOB program paid out a total of
$29,837,908 in death and disability benefits to qualifying survivors under
this program, and in FY00, a total of $28,292,684 in death and disability
benefits.[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 Ballistic 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. 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. The armor's
final weight is an important design 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 officers, the department
should consider upgrading its armor.

It should be noted that concealable ballistic-resistant 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 claiming to 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.

The details of armor classification and selection are discussed in chapters
6, 7, and 8. For the moment, it is sufficient to recognize the importance of
being realistic in assessing the 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.

The Stab Threat

The most common threat a correctional officer is likely to face is from a
knife or ice pick. In response to the needs of the corrections community,
NIJ has developed a performance standard for stab- and puncture-resistant
body armor, through a collaboration of the Office of Law Enforcement
Standards (OLES), the U.S. Secret Service, and the Police Scientific
Development Branch (PSDB) in the United Kingdom (UK). Stab
Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00, was released
in September 2000.

NIJ Standard-0115.00 places stab-resistant body armor into two
categories, based on the kind of threat it is designed to stop. One category
of protection, designated the "edged blade" class, stops engineered or
high-quality blades, such as kitchen knives or those purchased at sporting
goods stores, and represents the threat more commonly found on the street.
The second category, the "spike" class, stops the types of improvised
weapons commonly found in correctional facilities, typically of lower
quality materials that may have been sharpened on concrete or other rough
surfaces.

Not Just Bullets and Knives

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 his
car ran off the edge of the pavement. As he brought it back onto the
pavement, he lost control. After fishtailing several times, the car 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 neck area. There is every reason to believe that the body armor the
officer was wearing saved the officer's life.

Although the development of air bags and other safety-related
technologies in vehicles has lessened the severity of injuries, medical
experts have concluded that body armor mitigates injury in head-on
collisions when the driver is thrown against the steering wheel,
particularly when the seat belt is fastened.

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 a 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 also has
protected numerous officers from injury from physical assault with 2 by
4's, baseball bats, and other rigid objects.

2,500 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 point blank
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.

The IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club[registered trademark]
commemorated the 2,500th body armor save in November 2000 by
recognizing five officers selected from five different branches of law
enforcement. One of the saves was Officer Jeffrey Seaman of the
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Police Department, who found himself the
subject of cartoonist Rob Armstrong's syndicated strip, "Jump Start." For 2
weeks, the strip featured Officer Seaman's story, depicting the actual
shooting event, the reactions of his department and family, including his
mother, a corporal in the same department, who had always encouraged
her son to wear his body armor. The strip concluded during National
Police Week in Washington, D.C., with Officer Seaman visiting the wall
at the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial, and, in the final
strip, being inducted in the Survivors' Club.

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, the IACP 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 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.

According to a 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of 700 State
and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more officers,[10]
approximately 40 percent of sheriff's and municipal police departments,
and 25 percent of State and county police departments, require all field
officers to wear body armor, compared to almost 30 percent in the same
survey conducted in 1993.[11]

The 1993 BJS survey also reported that more than 80 percent of the 661
agencies surveyed for that year provided either body armor or cash
allowances to purchase body armor to all of their uniformed patrol
officers. 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.[12]

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

4. Body Armor Construction

How Does Ballistic-Resistant 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 that 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.

Today's generation of concealable body armor can provide varying levels
of protection 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.

How Does Stab-Resistant Body Armor Work? 

Stab-resistant body armor works by many of the same principles as
ballistic-resistant body armor. Stab- and puncture-resistant armors are
made from a variety of materials. The most common designs use multiple
layers of materials. These layers are made from extremely strong fibers
that can be either woven or laminated together. Other materials used are
metals and composites. As the threat impacts the armor, the materials
either deflect the threat, or due to their very high levels of tensile strength
and cut and/or tear resistance, they slightly "stretch" before breaking or
being cut. This "stretching" spreads the impact forces over a larger area of
the armor and dissipates the strike energy from the threat, eventually
stopping the threat. Most often, multiple layers of materials are needed to
successfully stop typical threats. Some of the top layers of material may be
defeated, but if properly designed, the armor will stop the threat with little
to no penetration. The backing layers provide additional strength to the
armor, and each layer assists in dissipating the strike energy.

Many of the same materials are used in both ballistic-resistant armor and
stab-resistant armor, with one important distinction. Because knives,
picks, and spikes are pointed, the initial contact forces for stabs threats are
very high. These high forces pose a risk to ballistic-resistant armor. To
counter this, stab-resistant armors are normally made from very tightly
woven fabrics or from very closely spaced laminated layers.

Construction Methods

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

Manmade fabrics are available from a number of manufacturers in various
styles and compositions, each type having unique ballistic- or
stab-resistant properties. The body armor manufacturer may construct a
given model of ballistic- or stab-resistant 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 protective panel influence the
overall performance of the panel. In addition, some manufacturers coat the
fabric with various materials. For example, the manufacturer may add a
layer of nonballistic or stab-resistant 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 protective panel. 

The manner in which the ballistic- or stab-resistant 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 panel. No
evidence exists that stitching impairs the ballistic- or stab-resistant
properties of a panel. Instead, stitching tends to improve the overall
performance, especially in cases of blunt trauma, depending on the type of
fabric used.

The differences between protective panels in various manufacturers'
products result from individual design concepts meant to achieve a given
level of 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 National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
standards, 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 2,600 models of body armor for
compliance with NIJ's ballistic-resistant performance standard. Of these,
more than 1,600 comply with the requirements of the NIJ standard and are
listed in the Personal Body Armor Consumer Product List (CPL),
available from NLECTC. Testing for compliance with NIJ's stab- and
puncture-resistant performance standard began in October 2000. 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.

Model and Style Designation

A manufacturer can, and frequently does, use identical ballistic- or
stab-resistant 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 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 on the details of the protective panel construction and
the manner in which the armor is held in place on 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 (e.g.,
the shape of the neckline, coverage, the size of the armhole openings, etc.).

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 standards 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
criminal justice personnel provides the rated level of protection. However,
NIJ recognizes that individual departments often desire minor armor
model modifications that do not have the potential to reduce the level of
protection. 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- or stab-resistant
materials of the protective panel resulting in a different number of total
layers in the panel.

2) Any alteration or changes to the sequence in which the layers are
arranged or configured within the ballistic panel for vests consisting of
multiple styles or types of 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) Modification of an approved side-opening (solid front/back panels) of
the 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 will be 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 has been issued by NLECTC, it becomes 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 standards are constructed identically to the model submitted to
NLECTC for testing and which was found to comply with the
requirements of the standards.

ISO 9000

Several armor manufacturers advertise that their companies have obtained
ISO 9000 certification. Some confusion exists 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 the NIJ standards). Therefore, a clear
and significant distinction exists between manufacturers that are ISO
certified and whether their products comply with the NIJ standards. ISO
certification addresses the quality of the manufacturing process used by
armor manufacturers, while the NIJ standards address the performance
capabilities of specific models of armor produced by manufacturers.

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 6 on page 36).

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 full metal jacket
(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. 

DuPont Kevlar[registered trademark] continues to develop and design new
generations of high-performance solutions and innovations to provide
multithreat protection to officers in the criminal justice community. This
patented multithreat technology will enable the creation of armor that
protects against firearms, commercially manufactured knives, and
puncture-producing weapons like ice picks. 

Spectra[registered trademark] fiber, manufactured by Honeywell, 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. Spectra[registered trademark] fiber,
which Honeywell claims is the highest strength-to-weight fiber in the
world, is resistant to water penetration, has extremely high chemical
resistance and very high cut resistance properties. Honeywell uses its
Spectra[registered trademark] fiber to make its patented 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. According to Honeywell, the resulting nonwoven fabric is incredibly
strong, lightweight, flexible, 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.

Honeywell also uses the Shield Technology process to manufacture
another type of shield composite called GoldFlex[registered trademark].
GoldFlex[registered trademark] is manufactured using aramid fibers in
place of the Spectra fiber. GoldFlex[registered trademark], Spectra
Shield[registered trademark], and Spectra[registered trademark] fabrics
offer body armor manufacturers an array of products to meet today's
demanding and changing threats.

Another manufacturer, Twaron Products, has developed various forms of
its aramid fiber Twaron[registered trademark] for body armor. According
to Twaron, 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. Twaron claims
their patented Microfilament technology allows maximum energy
absorption at minimum weights while enhancing comfort and flexibility.

Twaron Products 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. Twaron Products continues
to develop and manufacture lighter weight yarns with finer filaments,
expanding their patented Microfilament product line.

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[registered trademark] can bear up to a 240-kg load), is light
enough that it can float on water, and has high energy absorption
characteristics.

Zylon[registered trademark], manufactured by Japanese company,
Toyobo, is a PBO (polyphehylenebenzobisoxazole), a promising new
entrant to the high-performance organic fibers market. PBO has
outstanding thermal properties and almost twice the tensile strength of
conventional para-aramid fibers. According to Toyobo, Zylon[registered
trademark] will allow construction of comfortable protective garments
because its excellent heat- and mechanical-resistant properties will provide
light and flexible fabrics with improved comfort and mobility.

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 Standards

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards for Ballistic Resistance of
Personal Body Armor and Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor were
developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST's) Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) and issued by NIJ
as voluntary national standards. These are performance rather than design
standards, 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 archived.

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 NIJ standards before
they purchase the armor. As a result, most manufacturers design their
armor to comply with the standards 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 NIJ Standard for Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor

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.

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.

In 1975, NIJ requested that the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory
(LESL), the predecessor to OLES, begin revision of the first standard to
reflect contemporary research on blunt trauma and the degradation of
armor when wet. A revised standard, STD-0101.01,[13] was published in
December 1978 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, now known as the Personal Body Armor
Consumer Product List (CPL), which since 1999 has been available
electronically through the NLECTC Web site, JUSTNET, at
http://www.justnet.org. NLECTC also publishes other documents and
guides, such as this one, to help police departments select and procure
body armor.

In March 1985, NIJ amended the standard, issuing STD-0101.02, to take
into account armors' susceptibility to angle shots and multishot assaults.
NIJ STD-0101.02 also introduced threat level III-A, the highest protection
level in concealable armor, in response to concerns from the law
enforcement community about the need for protection from high-velocity
and high-energy handgun rounds such as the submachine gun 9mm and
.44 Magnum.[14] Published in April 1987, STD-0101.03 clarified labeling
requirements, acceptance criteria, and backface signature measurement
procedures.[15] NIJ also strengthened its administrative procedures for
archiving models.

The Current Standard, NIJ Standard-0101.04

In September 2000, NIJ issued Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.04[16] the first revision in 13 years. There
were a number of reasons for the revision. Since 1987, when the 0101.03
standard was adopted, there have been many changes in the design,
manufacturing, and use of body armor. The ammunition and weapons
threats that police officers face are different. Most officers today use
autoloading pistols as their duty weapon instead of revolvers. Design
technology used in making the vests has changed significantly, and new
ballistic-resistant materials have been introduced. Administrative changes
added to the NIJ standard over time have also made it unduly cumbersome
for laboratory test personnel to administer the test. The revised standard
reflects the changes in threats and designs and incorporates and
streamlines the administrative changes. Testing under the revised standard
was initiated in fall 2000.

The new 0101.04 standard represents a significant step toward ensuring
consistent, well-documented testing of body under NIJ's program. The
main intent of the revision was to incorporate as many of the lessons
learned from the long period of 0101.03 testing experience as possible,
particularly in regard to clarification and definition of many of the
methods and equipment used to test body armor for NIJ compliance.

In addition to the introduction of new test threat rounds, the new standard
reinstates the "pat down" procedure or the smoothing of the armor panel
between shots, which was performed in NIJ Standard-0101.02 and
previous editions, and an increase from one to two measurements per
panel for backface signature. The techniques and equipment for wet
conditioning of the test armor, construction of the backing material fixture,
and firing the test threat ammunition also have been updated and revised.
A single, highly automated, computer-based reporting format and
comprehensive database archival system will standardize reports, making
testing data more manageable and accessible to users.

Introducing Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-
0115.00

While the most common type of threat faced by a police officers is from a
gun, the most common threat a correctional officer is likely to face is from
a knife or ice pick. In response to the needs of the corrections community,
NIJ has developed a performance standard for stab- and puncture-resistant
body armor through a collaboration of OLES, the U.S. Secret Service, and
the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) in the United Kingdom
(UK). Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00[17]
was released in October 2000.

This standard specifies the minimum performance requirements for body
armor that is resistant to attack by typical pointed and edged weapons. The
standard also describes the test methodology to be used for this
assessment. 

In developing the standard, NIJ relied on the extensive research experience
of PSDB in the UK, where the primary threat to law enforcement officers
is from sharp-edged and pointed weapons. As part of their initial research,
PSDB created a model to determine the actual forces generated by an
assailant during attack, and, from this model, developed realistic test
methodologies and procedures that could be replicated in the laboratory.
Several different types of blades were engineered to accurately reflect
actual threats faced by law enforcement and correctional officers.
Although these blades are specially designed to ensure consistency in
testing procedures, they reflect many of the features found in the
high-grade commercial knives or homemade instruments most commonly
used in attacks.

The threats from ice picks and lower quality, prison-made knives and
shivs are much more difficult to quantify than those from commercial
knives. Research addressing homemade instruments continues, and any
improvements from this research will be incorporated into future revisions
of NIJ Standard-0115.00. For the present time, the same test methodology
will be used for homemade weapons as is used for commercial knives, but
the threat weapon is a modified ice pick commonly used in the "California
Ice Pick" test. A more complete discussion of the testing procedures,
protection classes, and threat levels can be found in chapter 7.

This standard and the revised standard for ballistic-resistant body armor
were circulated for review among the membership of the Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC),
LECTAC's Weapons and Protective Systems Subcommittee, LECTAC's
Executive Committee, and the National Armor Advisory Board (NAAB).
NAAB is made up of law enforcement officers and body armor industry
representatives, including fiber and fabric manufacturers, weavers, and
armor manufacturers. 

NIJ's policy on body armor has always been that preserving the life of the
police or corrections 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.

Cooperative Efforts Between NLECTC and Industry

To further enhance its mission to support State and local law enforcement
and corrections by identifying their needs, finding expedient and
cost-effective solutions, and bringing those solutions to the attention of the
law enforcement and corrections 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 3).

Key organizational components of NLECTC's policy development process
are NIJ, 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 and corrections professionals who are appointed by NLECTC
with the approval of the LECTAC Executive Committee. 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 criminal justice
community.

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

 o Assesses law enforcement and corrections 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 criminal justice community.

LECTAC subcommittees. LECTAC's subcommittees report to the full
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 criminal justice
community looks to NLECTC for authoritative information on the latest
technology and products. NLECTC:

 o Coordinates equipment testing activities and collects results from
laboratories.

 o Publishes consumer product lists 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 criminal justice 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 Personal Body Armor CPL. The testing itself
is contracted between the manufacturer and the 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, 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 4, 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. Ballistic-Resistant Personal Body Armor

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. 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 data will permit an
assessment of the current threat from street weapons. The National
Institute of Justice (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 1980 to 2000
shows that 163 of the 1,058 officers killed with a handgun, or on average
one in six officers, was killed with his or her own service weapon. 

Information from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Law Enforcement
Officers Killed and Assaulted[18] 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 1990 to 1999, 658 law
enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty (see exhibit
5). Of these, 610 (92.7 percent) were killed by firearms--466 (71 percent)
by handguns, 112 (17 percent) by rifles, 32 (4.9 percent) by shotguns--and
48 (7 percent) by other types of weapons. These other weapons included
knives (10 fatalities); bombs (11, 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 (22).

Of the 466 deaths from handguns, between 1990 and 1999, 9mm handguns
or lesser handguns were used in 311 (66.7 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 time period of 1980 to 1999, a total of 163
deaths, or 15.4 percent of deaths from handguns, resulted from officers
being shot with their own service weapon (see exhibit 6). In these 163
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 1980 to 1989, an average
of 11.2 officers were slain annually with their own weapons; from 1990 to
1999, the average decreased to 5.2 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 antitakeaway features. However, officers should still be
cognizant of the potential danger posed by their own sidearms, should
these 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.

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.

The Corrections Threat

While the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Law Enforcement Officers Killed
and Assaulted (LEOKA) provides detailed insight into the nature and
types of assaults on police officers, there are no comparable statistics
currently maintained for assaults on corrections officers. However, the
statistics that are available indicate that the threat of assault is a common
danger for corrections officers as well.

According to data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),
between 1990 and 1997 the number of inmates in State and Federal
custody has increased by a total of 434,000, or an average annual growth
rate of 6.8 percent.[19] There was a one-third increase in the number of
assaults by inmates on corrections facility staff between 1990 and 1995. In
1990, there were 10,731 reported assaults by inmates on corrections
facility staff; in 1995, there were 14,165 reported assaults. The nature of
the assaults has become more severe as well. In 1990, none of the reported
assaults resulted in the death of the staff member who was assaulted. By
comparison, in 1995, 14 staff members were killed as a result of the
assault.[20]

While the threat faced by the police officer is most frequently from
firearms, a corrections officer faces an entirely different variety of threats.
Because corrections officers are rarely equipped with firearms, and it is
extremely rare for an inmate to obtain a firearm within a correctional
facility, the most common threat faced is from pointed- and sharp-edged
weapons. Most of these are homemade or improvised weapons, made from
scraps of metal obtained through a variety of sources in the corrections
environment. 

While these threats are different from firearms, they are equally capable of
inflicting serious or fatal injuries. Until recently, many protective garments
designed for use against corrections threats were much heavier and bulkier
than the ballistic-resistant counterparts worn by police officers, as
materials technology generally did not allow for a protective vest for
corrections applications to be made entirely of woven materials. Quite
frequently, these vests incorporated thin sheets of metal and other types of
hard plating to protect against typical corrections threats. However, in
recent years significant breakthroughs in materials technology have made
it possible for corrections officers to have access to stab- and
puncture-resistant vests that are similar in weight and bulk to the
ballistic-resistant vests worn by their police counterparts. It is anticipated
that as these vests become more commonplace in the corrections
workplace, corrections officer fatalities will decrease as police officer
fatalities decreased after the introduction of ballistic-resistant armor in the
mid- to late 1970s.

Armor Classifications for Ballistic-Resistant Armor

NIJ Standard-0101.04 establishes six formal armor classification types, as
well as a seventh special type, as follows:

Type I (.22 LR; .380 ACP). This armor protects against .22 long rifle lead
round nose (LR LRN) bullets, with nominal masses of 2.6 g (40 gr),
impacting at a minimum velocity of 320 m/s (1050 ft/s) or less, and
against .380 ACP full metal jacketed round nose (FMJ RN), with nominal
masses of 6.2 g (95 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s
(1025 ft/s) or less.

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 (9mm; .40 S&W). This armor protects against 9mm full metal
jacketed round nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124
gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 332 m/s (1090 ft/s) or less, and
.40 S&W caliber full metal jacketed (FMJ) bullets, with nominal masses
of 11.7 g (180 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s (1025 ft/s)
or less. It also provides protection against 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 9mm and 40 S&W ammunition.

Type II (9mm; .357 Magnum). This armor protects against 9mm full metal
jacketed round nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124
gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 358 m/s (1175 ft/s) or less, and
.357 Magnum jacketed soft point (JSP) bullets, with nominal masses of
10.2 g (158 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 427 m/s (1400 ft/s) or
less. It also provides protection against Type I and Type IIA 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 (High Velocity 9mm; .44 Magnum). This armor protects
against 9mm full metal jacketed round nose (FJM RN) bullets, with
nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 427
m/s (1400 ft/s) or less, and .44 Magnum jacketed hollow point (JHP)
bullets, with nominal masses of 15.6 g (240 gr), impacting at a minimum
velocity of 427 m/s (1400 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 (Rifles). This armor protects against 7.62mm full metal jacketed
(FMJ) bullets (U.S. military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.6
g (148 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 838 m/s (2750 ft/s) or less.
It also provides protection against 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 caliber
armor piercing (AP) bullets (U.S. military designation M2 AP), with
nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of
869 m/s (2850 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.

Requirements

The performance requirements of NIJ Standard-0101.04, 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 7, 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 per panel, for two complete samples (front and
back panels) at specified velocities and locations for two types of
ammunition. Two of the impacts in each six-shot sequence must be at a
30-degree angle. A total of 48 shots are completed on four samples.
Furthermore, the deformation of the backing material (a measure of blunt
trauma protection) must not exceed 44mm (1.73 in). Deformation readings
are taken on each panel at shot location 1, then at either shot location 2 or
3, whichever one had the highest shot velocity. The armor must meet these
requirements while 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. A total of 12 shots are
completed (6 shots per sample).

Type IV armor is required to resist penetration from only a single type of
ammunition (armor piercing) and is only required to prevent penetration
and backface deformation greater than 44mm (1.73 in) from a single
perpendicular impact. A total of two samples are tested.

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 U.S. 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 rip-stop 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 the 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, corrections, 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-0101.04. The models that comply with the
requirements of this NIJ standard are added to its Personal Body Armor
Consumer Product List (CPL), which is widely distributed to law
enforcement agencies as a procurement aid.

Exhibit 8, from NIJ Standard-0101.04, 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 9, also from NIJ Standard-0101.04, 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 7 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 the remaining five shots are fired, two of which (locations 5 and
6) are fired at an angle of 30 degrees to the armor surface. The armor is
smoothed out, or "patted down," after each shot. After the first shot is
taken, the panel is removed from the test fixture and the clay is trimmed,
or "struck," back to its original level surface. A second deformation
measurement is taken at either shot number 2 or number 3, depending on
which shot had the highest velocity.

The armor is tested 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 the armor when
backed 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.

Ballistic Limit Testing

As part of NIJ Standard-0101.04, the Office of Law Enforcement
Standards (OLES) has developed a performance assurance program to
determine the ongoing performance of body armor currently in service or a
new production unit of a previously tested and approved model. The
Baseline Ballistic Limit test will establish a benchmark of penetration
performance and will provide a reliable and consistent way to retest
NIJ-compliant armor. The ballistic limit test does not have a pass or fail
performance requirement; it provides additional information about the
ballistic performance of a given armor model. The ballistic limit testing is
done after the armor model has successfully passed the traditional
penetration and backface signature testing. The performance assurance
program is based on V50 testing.

All ballistic-resistant materials can ultimately be overmatched whether by
bigger or faster bullets or simply by firing the same bullet fast enough to
eventually overcome the ability of the given material to stop it.

The V50 ballistic limit, within statistical reason, identifies the velocity at
which the armor material stops the bullet at least half the time. Knowing
that the ballistic limit of a particular body armor model is well in excess of
the NIJ reference velocity--at which no penetration is expected or allowed
for in compliance testing--provides additional assurance of the overall
ballistic performance of the armor even in instances where the encountered
threat may be beyond the expected norm.

Acceptance and In-Service Testing

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-0101.04. 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 ballistic material lots
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 National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Center (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. For more information on service life, or life
cycle testing, please see the discussion on this topic in chapter 10 (page
60).

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

7. Stab-Resistant Personal Body Armor

Armor Classifications for Stab-Resistant Armor

The first step in selecting the appropriate protection level of stab-resistant
body armor is to establish the level of protection that users need based on
the realistic weapon threat they face.

NIJ Standard-0115.00 places stab-resistant body armor into two categories
based on the kind of threat it is designed to stop. One category of
protection, designated the "edged blade" class, stops engineered or
high-quality blades, such as kitchen knives or those purchased at sporting
goods stores, and represents the threat more commonly found on the street.
The second category, the "spike" class, stops the types of improvised
weapons commonly found in correctional facilities, typically made of
lower quality materials that may have been sharpened on concrete or other
rough surfaces.

Within each of these two categories are three levels of protection, based on
the energy that would impact the body armor during an attack. The amount
of energy expended in an attack is expressed in joules. One joule is
equivalent to 1 foot-pound of energy or the amount of energy delivered
from a 1-pound weight dropped from a height of 1 foot.

Level 1 is a low-level protection armor suitable for extended wear,
generally concealable, and capable of defeating 24 joules of energy. Level
2 armor is a general duty garment suitable for extended wear that may be
concealable or worn over the uniform that will defeat 33 joules of energy.
Level 3 is a high-level protection armor suitable for wear in high-risk
situations that will defeat 43 joules of energy. As an example, a prison
administrator might wear 24-joule body armor in the spike category,
designed to stop improvised weapons, while a corrections officer on a
high-security unit would wear the spike category, level 3, 43-joule body
armor.

As stated in chapter 5, in developing the standard, NIJ relied on the
extensive research experience of the Police Scientific Development
Branch (PSDB) in the United Kingdom (UK), where the primary threat to
law enforcement officers is from sharp-edged and pointed weapons. As
part of their initial research, PSDB created a model to determine the actual
forces generated by an assailant during attack, and, from this model,
developed realistic test methodologies and procedures that could be
replicated in the laboratory. Several different types of blades were
engineered to accurately reflect actual threats faced by law enforcement
and correctional officers. Although these blades are specially designed to
ensure consistency in testing procedures, they reflect many of the features
found in the high-grade commercial knives or homemade instruments
most commonly used in attacks.

The threats from ice picks and lower quality, prison-made knives and
shivs are much more difficult to quantify than those from commercial
knives. Research addressing homemade instruments continues, and any
improvements from this research will be incorporated into future revisions
of NIJ Standard-0115.00. For the present time, the same test methodology
will be used for homemade weapons as is used for commercial knives, but
the threat weapon is a modified ice pick commonly used in the "California
Ice Pick" test.

Developing the Testing Procedure 

Before PSDB could develop equipment to test body armor under
conditions that could be replicated in the laboratory, researchers examined
the mechanics of stabbing, first reviewing medical data from more than
1,000 actual stabbing assaults in the UK. Using this information, they
developed an instrumented blade, or "stabometer," that could measure the
acceleration and force generated by a stabbing impact. Five hundred
healthy male recruits used the stabometer, stabbing from a variety of
directions and using a number of techniques such as a jab, roundhouse,
overhead, and double- and single-handed stab. Measurements taken from
these tests documented the energy of a stabbing incident. A second series
of tests examined other factors that affect the stabbing act--technique,
strength, attitude, coordination, and body position. 

From this data, PSDB created a testing mechanism, the dual-mass drop
system that accurately replicates the mechanical forces that would impact
the body armor during an attack. For the highest level of protection, a vest
should be able to withstand 43 joules of energy, allowing no more than 7
millimeters (1/4 inch) of penetration. 

During the testing procedure, the body armor is placed on backing material
designed to most accurately replicate the response of the human torso
during a stabbing incident. The backing material is a composite consisting
of alternating layers of closed-cell foam and neoprene rubber. To test
nonflexible armor designs molded to the shape of the human torso, an
alternate backing of modeling clay is used.

Overtest

As part of the testing procedure, an overtest is performed for each level of
protection. The test protocol increases the kinetic energy of the knife blade
or spike by 50 percent to ensure that there is an adequate margin of safety
in the armor design. At the higher energy condition, a maximum blade or
spike penetration of 20mm (.79 inch) is allowable.

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

8. Armor Selection

Armor Styles

Concealable body armor. The most widely used type of 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, composed 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, the National Institute of Justice (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 the NIJ standards.

Semirigid body armor. Body armor that provides protection against higher
threat levels (III and IV), as specified in NIJ Standard-0101.04, 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 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- or stab-resistant 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 1990
to 1999, 290 law enforcement officers were killed while wearing
protective armor (see exhibit 11). Of those officers 160 (55.2 percent)
were killed by gunshot wounds to the head; 101 (34.8 percent) died as a
result of gunshot wounds to the upper torso; 18 (6.2 percent) died as a
result of gunshot wounds below the waist; 5 (1.7 percent) were struck by
automobiles; 2 (0.7 percent) were stabbed; and 4 (1.4 percent) died by
other means.

Of the 101 officers killed by gunshot wounds to the upper torso, 40 (39.6
percent) were killed when the round entered the torso region between the
panels of the vest or through the arm openings, and 34 (33.7 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.

Twenty of the 101 officers killed by gunshot wounds to the upper torso
died as a result of rounds penetrating the body armor. Of these 20
incidents, all were the reported result of rifle rounds, which the armor was
not designed to protect against. It is important to note that 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.

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

9. Purchasing Body Armor

Overview

Before purchasing body armor, an agency must first assess its potential
threats and determine what level of protection is required for its officers.
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 Personal Body Armor
Consumer Product List (CPL) that meet the department's protection needs.
This document, published electronically on the National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) JUSTNET Web site,
provides a listing of the armor models that have been tested and found to
comply with National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards, which
independently validate 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. When the armor arrives, the
purchaser should verify that the armor received is the specific model that
was ordered.

Criminal justice agencies can buy ballistic- and stab-resistant body armor
for half the price by taking advantage of the U.S. Department of Justice's
Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant Act of 1998, administered by
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The chief executive officer of a
law enforcement agency can apply online to purchase NIJ-approved vests.
(Go to http://vests.ojp.gov/leas.html to learn more about how the chief
executive officer is defined and to learn more about the application
process.) BJA will match up to 50 percent of the cost of the armor,
including the cost of shipping and taxes. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Program was enacted to save the lives of law enforcement officers by
helping States and local and tribal governments equip their officers with
body armor.

Congress appropriated $25 million for the program's second year. At least
half the funds are provided to local government units with fewer than
100,000 residents. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000
was recently enacted. This means the program will remain in effect for 3
more years, from 2002 to 2004. It also provides priority funding for
jurisdictions with populations under 100,000 and increases the authorized
funding level to $50 million each year. These changes will not take effect
until 2002. The applications accepted in 2001 will be governed by the
current BVP Act of 1998.

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 standards and the Personal 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.

The NIJ standards focus on the protection characteristics of body armor,
and the Personal Body Armor CPL presents the models that meet the
requirements of the standards. Departments that base their purchases on
the Personal 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. Ensure that the purchase agreement is not ambiguous in any
way.

 o Simplicity. Include only items essential to the purchase agreement.

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

To ensure that bids involve only armor in compliance with NIJ Standard-
0101.04 or NIJ Standard-0115.00, 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-0101.04 (or NIJ Standard-0115.00).
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-0101.04 (or NIJ Standard- 0115.00)
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 standards and
then add specific, nonprotective 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 standards, 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 Personal 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
Personal 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 standards. 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 that 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-
0101.04 and/or NIJ Standard 0115.00. 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 Personal
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.)

Item A--Compliance with NIJ standards. Citing the ballistic performance
required by specifying the appropriate armor type, as defined by NIJ
Standard-0101.04, or the stab-performance requirements of NIJ Standard-
0115.00, is a mandatory component of the specifications section. This
information ensures that the armor ordered provides a known performance
level.

Item B--Labeling. The label included on the protective panel 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-
0101.04 or NIJ Standard-0115.00. 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 protective 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 differently (i.e., providing a lower level
of protection than that ordered) than what the purchase agreement has
specified.

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 either NIJ Standard-
0101.04 or NIJ Standard-0115.00. 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 either NIJ Standard-
0101.04 or NIJ Standard-0115.00. 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.

Item C--Configuration. Specifying a particular configuration of protective
panel 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 protective panels that were tested and found
to comply with NIJ Standard-0101.04 or NIJ Standard-0115.00 in more
than one configuration. For instance, a protective panel may have been
tested in a configuration with an open, unprotected area on the side of the
torso; an identical protective panel may also be manufactured with the
sides extended to create an overlapping configuration. These two are
considered to be the same model.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 protective
panel used in the armor is constructed. For instance, a department should
never specify a specific fabric or weave for the ballistic- or stab-resistant
material, nor should it specify the number of layers of material to be used.
Doing so could restrict the bid to a single manufacturer, result in armor
that does not meet the requirements of NIJ Standard- 0101.04 or NIJ
Standard-0115.00, 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- or stab-resistant 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 a space be included on the label where the name of the officer
can be printed on the armor label by the purchasing agency.

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 standards.

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 to be
unacceptable--even though in full compliance with the procurement
specifications.

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.

Protection/Testing Considerations

Although body armor for routine, full-time wear has been available for
approximately 25 years, the state-of-the-art technology 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.

Many of these concepts are also true for stab-resistant armor, which has
emerged as a viable option for corrections officers over the past several
years. Advances in materials technology has allowed body armor
manufacturers to design stab-resistant vests that are considerably lighter,
more flexible, and wearable than models previously available, which were
extremely bulky and frequently contained layers of metal or chain-mail
type material.

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

10. 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 NIJ
standards 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 the correct cleaning
procedures. 

The protective 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 protective
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 protection. 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 protective 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 performance. Commercial laundries
also use commercial detergents, which are much harsher than home
detergents, and pose another threat to maintaining the ballistic- or
stab-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.[21] 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 protective properties of certain
types of ballistic- or stab-resistant 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 protective materials are not covered with a permanent cover
(which is highly uncommon for a typical modern vest), 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
protective 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 protective inserts has not been cut or damaged, which would allow
moisture to penetrate the protective panel. Even if the outer covers have
not been cut or otherwise damaged, the moisture barrier can still be
damaged. When the protective material or the outershell carrier rubs over
the protective 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- and stab-resistant 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.

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 weight may change over 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. The first step in this
process is the introduction of the Baseline Ballistic Limit Test in NIJ
Standard-0101.04. See page 41 for further discussion of this test.

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[22] (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,[23] 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.

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.

Another issue relative to replacement guidelines is the manufacturer's
warranty. Many body armor manufacturers currently offer a 5-year
warranty on the products they sell to criminal justice agencies. This 5-year
period is generally thought to be a reflection of the guidelines established
by the early research conducted by DuPont. Recently, some manufacturers
have offered warranties as long as for 12 years after purchase. It is
important for agencies to recognize that a manufacturer's warranty should
not be interpreted as a benchmark for service life. The warranty exists
solely to limit the manufacturer's liability on the product and is not a
reflection of the anticipated service life of the product. 

For example, most new cars come with some type of manufacturer's
warranty, such as 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first. The
condition of each car sold under this warranty will vary due to any number
of conditions (e.g., type/frequency of maintenance, variations in driving
habits and conditions), but it is safe to say that the vast majority of these
cars will still be operating at the end of this warranty period, and a
significant number of these cars will offer many more miles of reliable
service afterward. However, the manufacturer will no longer be
responsible for any future major maintenance problems or cosmetic flaws.
The same is true for protective armor. If the armor is properly cared for,
shows no visible flaws or defects, still properly fits the officer, and still
provides an adequate level of protection based upon a current assessment
of the threats encountered, then it should be reasonable to presume that
unit of armor is still serviceable. However, the manufacturer will not be
held liable for any claims of inadequate performance after the expiration of
the warranty period. For agencies that determine that it is not feasible to
replace armor in accordance with a manufacturer's warranty cycle, the
continued use of serviceable units of armor is definitely better than the
alternative--to not wear the armor and have no protection. In this case,
however, it is advisable for the agency to consult its liability insurance
carrier to determine the implications this may have for its respective
policy.

Testing Used Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor by Departments

It appears that until further studies are conducted and nondestructive test
methods developed, a department has little choice but to periodically
conduct ballistic tests of representative samples 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.

As discussed in more detail in chapter 6, the Office of Law Enforcement
Standards (OLES) has developed a performance assurance program to help
determine the ongoing performance of body armor currently in service or a
new production unit of a previously tested and approved model. The
Baseline Ballistic Limit test establishes a benchmark of penetration
performance and provides a reliable and consistent way to retest
NIJ-compliant armor. The ballistic limit test does not have a pass or fail
performance requirement, but provides additional information about the
ballistic performance of a given armor model. The ballistic limit testing is
done after the armor model has successfully passed the traditional
penetration and backface signature testing. The performance assurance
program is based on a modified form of ballistic limit testing, commonly
known as V50. (See the discussion of V50 testing in chapter 6, page 40.)

As a guideline, an agency should 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 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 for used
or inservice armor must clearly establish the testing objective. Generally,
this objective is to satisfy the department that its armor still provides as
consistent a level of protection as when originally purchased. In these
cases, the ballistic limit determination test outlined in sections 5.17
through 5.21 of NIJ Standard-0101.04 provides an abbreviated
methodology for performing these tests.

An agency considering performing the ballistic limit determination test in
accordance with NIJ Standard-0101.04 should initially select a sample of
armor for testing that shows the heaviest signs of wear and use. This
should be done for two reasons. First, it represents the "worst-case"
scenario for testing, and second, it is the most logical unit of armor to be
replaced, since the testing is destructive and the sample cannot be reissued
after the test is completed. It is also highly recommended that the test be
performed by a qualified independent testing laboratory, preferably one
that is NIJ/NLECTC approved to perform compliance tests in accordance
with NIJ Standard-0101.04. (A list of approved laboratories can be
obtained by calling NLECTC at 800-248-2742, or from NLECTC's
Internet site, JUSTNET, at http://www.justnet.org.) It is important to note
that these test procedures are only applicable to models of armor that
comply with NIJ Standard-0101.04. A vest that complies with a previous
edition of the standard cannot be tested in this manner, as no baseline
ballistic limit data exists for these models.

If armor passes the 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 an NIJ standard (and to
which version of the NIJ standard) 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 concerning the
nature of tests to be performed. 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.

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 Personal 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 in appendix A.

 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
standards 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.

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

11. 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 understand 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.

When armor is issued, departments must ensure that each officer knows
the level of protection provided by the armor relative to various weapons
threats. Officers also must know that body armor may not be completely
effective against attack by a knife or other sharp instrument, such as an ice
pick. It may not protect against bullets from high-powered rifles. The
department should make clear the level of protection offered.

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 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 unique 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 user
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 be frequently 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.

Certain material manufacturers have an ongoing recycling program where
out-of-service armor panels are destroyed by chopping the fabric into very
small fragments and reusing the pulverized material in other nonballistic
industrial applications. See the resource list in appendix A for contact
information.

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-0101.04 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. To be considered stab or
puncture resistant, body armor must be tested under NIJ's Standard-
0115.00 for stab-resistant body armor.

Because of incidents such as those described above, the NIJ standard for
ballistic-resistant body armor 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 after effects 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 International Association of Chiefs of Police/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 30 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 2,500 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 NIJ's goal to save even more lives and continue to build
upon the success resulting from its body armor standards and testing
program.

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

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. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Ballistic
Resistance of Police Body Armor, NILECJ-STD-0101.00, Washington,
D.C.: 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 Andrew L. Goldberg, Law Enforcement
Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for Individual State
and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, April 1999, NCJ 171681.

11. 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, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
September 1995, NCJ 148825.

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

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

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

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

16. National Institute of Justice, Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor, NIJ Standard- 0101.04, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 2000, NCJ 183651.

17. National Institute of Justice, Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor,
NIJ Standard- 0115.00, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 2000, NCJ 183652.

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

19. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United
States, 1997 (Executive Summary), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2000, NCJ 177614.

20. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, 1995, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, August 1997, NCJ 164266. 

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

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

23. See note 21 above.

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

Bibliography

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

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Census of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, August 1997. NCJ 164266.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional Populations in the United States,
1997 (Executive Summary). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2000. NCJ 177614.

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, D.C.: 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, D.C.: 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, D.C.: 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, D.C.: 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, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, March 1975.

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

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

National Institute of Justice. Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor,
NIJ Standard- 0101.04. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, September 2000. NCJ 183651.

National Institute of Justice. Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ
Standard-0115.00. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 2000. NCJ 183652.

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

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

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

Personal Body Armor Facts Book, DuPont, June 1994.

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,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1989, NCJ 119220.

Reaves, Brian A. and Andrew L. Goldberg. Law Enforcement
Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data for Individual State
and Local Agencies With 100 or More Officers. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, April 1999, NCJ 171681.

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, D.C.: 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: 

Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act (BVPGA) Program 
Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Tel: 877-75-VESTS (877-758-3787)
Internet: http://vests.ojp.gov
Helps States, local governments, and tribal governments equip their law
enforcement officers with armor vests.

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: http://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: http://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: http://www.fbi.gov/urc/ucp.htm
Statistics on law enforcement officers killed and assaulted.

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

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
515 North Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2357
Tel: 800-843-4227
Fax: 703-836-4543
Internet: http://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: Ron McBride, Law Enforcement Consultant, or Anna Knight,
Club Administrator
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: http://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: http://www.nleomf.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: 703-267-1640
Internet: http://www.nrahq.org/safety/law/lebenefits.asp
Contact: Marion Mayer
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: http://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.

Twaron Products 
801-F Blacklawn Road
Conyers, GA 30207
Tel: 800-451-6586
Fax: 770-929-8138
Internet: http://www.twaronproducts.com
Manufacturer of Twaron[registered trademark].

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

Appendix B. 25 Questions and Answers About Personal Body Armor

The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-
National (NLECTC- National), located in Rockville, Maryland,
administers the National Institute of Justice's (NIJ's) voluntary compliance
testing programs for personal body armor. In addition to processing
samples received for testing, NLECTC-National staff routinely respond to
inquiries received from law enforcement, corrections, other criminal
justice agencies, and product manufacturers about the testing program.
The 25 most frequently asked questions regarding the body armor testing
programs and their corresponding answers that follow are provided as part
of NLECTC-National's commitment to provide timely and accurate
information to the user community. If you have a question that is not
found in this document, please contact NLECTC- National by telephone at
800-248-2742 or 301-519-5060, by fax at 301-519-5149, or by 
e-mail at asknlectc@nlectc.org.

Q: We're going to purchase body armor in the near future. Do you have
any advice or suggestions?

A: Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor, NIJ Guide
100-01, contains important information to assist agencies and individual
officers in selecting, purchasing, and caring for body armor. Recently, NIJ
has introduced two new body armor standards (one for ballistics and one
for stab and puncture resistance). To obtain a copy of the most current
version, call NLECTC at 800-248-2742 or 301-519-5060, or download a
copy from http://www.justnet.org.

Also, funds are available through the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Act (BVPGA), administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), to
assist law enforcement and corrections agencies with the purchase of
ballistic- and stab-resistant armor. The BVPGA will provide funds to pay
for up to half of the purchase price of armor models found to comply with
NIJ standards. For more information on how to apply for these funds, visit
the BVPGA World Wide Web site at http://vests.ojp.gov.

Q: How does ballistic-resistant 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 the impacting projectile.

Q: How does stab- and puncture-resistant body armor work?

A: Stab- and puncture-resistant armors are made from a variety of
materials. The most commonly used materials are made from extremely
strong fibers, which can either be woven or laminated together. Other
materials used are metals and composites. As the threat impacts the armor,
the materials either deflect the threat, or due to their very high level of cut
and/or tear resistance, they "stretch" and the impact forces are dissipated
over a larger area of the armor.

Q: Is ballistic-resistant armor also stab/puncture resistant (or vice versa)?

A: The materials technology that makes body armor ballistically resistant
does not necessarily make it stab or puncture resistant (and vice versa).
The IACP/DuPont KEVLAR Survivors Club[registered trademark] has
documented a number of incidents over the years in which
ballistic-resistant armor has provided some protection against attacks from
a variety of sharp-edged and other weapons (e.g, clubs.). However, one
should not presume that a ballistic-resistant vest will protect against
nonballistic threats, or that a stab-resistant vest provides ballistic
protection. Armor that complies with NIJ standards will clearly identify
the types and level of threats that they are designed to protect against.

Q: What types of ballistic-resistant materials are used to make body
armor?

A: Body armor can be made from a number of different types of woven or
nonwoven materials. One of the first fibers used for modern
ballistic-resistant material was Kevlar[registered trademark], which is
made by DuPont. Other materials include Spectra[registered trademark],
which is made by Honeywell (formerly AlliedSignal); Twaron[registered
trademark], made by Accordis (formerly Akzo Nobel), and
Zylon[registered trademark], made by Toyobo. These materials are
manufactured in a variety of styles, and can be woven or nonwoven
(laminated). Hard (nonfabric) armor plates can be made from a number of
materials, including metals, ceramics, and other composite materials.

Q: Which ballistic- or stab-resistant material is better?

A: The NIJ standards for personal body armor (ballistic and stab/puncture
resistant) establish minimum performance requirements to evaluate
specific designs or "models" of armor. The standard is not intended to be a
design specification, which would require manufacturers to use a specific
type of material and/or design pattern to achieve a required level of
protection. Instead, by measuring only the performance capabilities of the
model, this allows armor manufacturers the ability to innovate by using
any type or combination of types of materials, as well as design methods,
to achieve the required level of protection. 

Q: What new technologies have been developed for body armor?

A: Over the past 20 years, new materials and fabrics have been introduced
that have contributed significantly to the wearability of body armor. Body
armor manufacturers also have made a number of advances in design
technology, resulting in body armor that has increased ballistic protection
capabilities, more flexibility, less weight, and is ultimately more
comfortable. New materials also have been developed that provide
protection against sharp-edged and pointed weapons.

Q: Is there a difference between male and female models of armor?

A: Generally speaking, the difference between male and female models is
that for female body armor, most manufacturers cut and stitch the material
to create bust cups. This is why the NIJ standard views male and female
vests as separate models, even though they may be made of exactly the
same type and sequence of layers of ballistic materials. When a female
model is tested, the laboratory is instructed to locate the seam that is
created by folding and/or stitching the material to make the bust cup, and
to place one of the shots on that seam. This is done to ensure the weakest
point of the vest (typically a seam) provides the minimum level of ballistic
protection required by the standard.

It is important to note that this is a generalization. There are many
different types and styles of female vests, and different ways of fitting
vests to accommodate all of the various sizes and shapes needed for
female officers. Some manufacturers have developed methods that "mold"
the bust cups into the material, negating the need for cutting and stitching
to create a bust cup. Other manufacturers simply alter the outside
dimensions of the panel (e.g., enlarging the arm hole openings) to
accommodate certain types of builds and body types (commonly referred
to as a "unisex" vest).

In summary, when selecting a female vest, NIJ and NLECTC recommend
that an agency look at and have its officers try on a variety of models from
different manufacturers that have been tested and found to comply with
the NIJ standard for personal body armor. This will assist in selecting the
model that provides the best combination of comfort, fit, protection
capability, and accessories and features. Be sure to ask the manufacturer's
representative about ongoing customer support and what steps they will
take to properly measure and fit the vests, as well as making adjustments
once the vests have been delivered. Ask the representative for references
from other agencies that have purchased their armor, and contact other
agencies in your area who have recently purchased armor to learn about
their experiences.

Q: What type and 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
(firearms, knives, etc.) being confiscated from suspects. Also factor in
what type of sidearm and duty ammunition you are carrying. FBI Uniform
Crime Report (UCR) data indicate that approximately one in six officers
who are killed in the line of duty are 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. The same concepts apply for correctional
officers seeking stab- or puncture-resistant armor.

Q: What are trauma plates?

A: Trauma plates are devices that can be added to the vest over a localized
area (most commonly the mass center of the torso) to increase the wearer's
protection against blunt trauma injuries. Blunt trauma injuries are caused
by the impact forces of the bullet against the armor, resulting in
nonpenetrating internal injuries such as bruises, broken ribs, or other
injuries to internal organs. Trauma plates can be made of a hard substance
such as metal wrapped in rubber or ballistic fabric, or they can be made of
additional layers of ballistic fabric, similar to an armor panel. Some
manufacturers even build trauma plates into the armor panel itself.

Q: Which manufacturer makes the best body armor?

A: The NIJ standards for personal body armor (ballistic and stab/puncture
resistant) and the voluntary compliance testing programs operated by
NLECTC exist to ensure that models of armor offered for sale to law
enforcement and corrections personnel are safe, reliable, and meet
minimum performance requirements. Neither NIJ nor NLECTC "endorse"
any particular manufacturer or model of armor, but provide a complete
listing of all models that have been tested and found to comply with the
NIJ standard. You can access this list, which is updated continuously,
through our Internet site at http://www.justnet.org. If you do not have
access to the Internet, 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 armor labels. Failure to follow these
instructions may damage the ballistic performance capabilities of the
armor. The Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor
contains general guidelines on how to properly care for armor. This
document can be obtained by calling NLECTC at 800-248-2742 or 301-
519-5060, or can be downloaded from http://www.justnet.org.

Q: How long does body armor last?

A: There are a number of factors that can influence the service life cycle of
body armor. NIJ has sponsored research that indicates that age is not the
only factor in determining the service life of armor. Other factors to
consider include: how regularly the armor is worn, how it is cared for, how
properly it fits the wearer (most people lose or gain weight over a period
of years), and the overall condition of the armor (e.g., Do the fasteners still
work properly?). We encourage departments to have a routine inspection
program for body armor, just as they would for weapons, vehicles, and
other types of issued equipment. The Selection and Application Guide 
to Personal Body Armor contains a sample form that can be used as a
checklist when inspecting armor.

Q: How do I dispose of my old vest?

A: Check with your department to see if it has a policy regarding the
disposal of used body armor. If they do not, there are several organizations
that accept donations of used vests for distribution to law enforcement
agencies here in the United States. Check with your local Fraternal Order
of Police. If you are not comfortable donating your armor to another
agency, you may also contact the manufacturer of your vest to determine if
it will dispose of your armor. Some agencies also have used retired armor
in the door panels of police cars or special operations vehicles.

Q: I understand that NIJ has published a new standard for
ballistic-resistant armor. What are the major differences between the new
version and NIJ Standard-0101.03?

A: In September 2000, NIJ released Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.04. This revision, the first of this standard in 13
years, was the result of a 3-year effort that included input from the law
enforcement, body armor manufacturing, and fiber manufacturing
communities. The Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES)
coordinated the development of this new revision, performing most of the
research with support from various components of the NLECTC system. 

Technical highlights of the new standard (0101.04) include: 

 o Updated test rounds for certain NIJ armor types, replacing outdated or
obsolete ammunition:

 -- For Type I armor, the .38 Special has been replaced by the .380 ACP.

 -- For Type IIA, the .357 Magnum has been replaced by the .40 S&W.

 -- For Type IIIA, the .44 Magnum remains, but the test bullet has been
changed to a semi-jacketed hollow point (SJHP) from the lead
semi-wadcutter gas check (LSWGC), which is no longer manufactured.

All other test rounds remain unchanged from NIJ Standard-0101.03.

 o A second backface signature (BFS) measurement on each panel.

 o A single environmental test condition (wet).

 o Restoration of the armor's original physical condition between impacts
(commonly referred to as "pat-down").

 o A Baseline Ballistic Limit test to establish benchmark penetration
performance of the armor, which is useful for enhanced understanding of
its protection, and to provide a consistent baseline for any future retesting
that might be required.

Q: Do models that comply with NIJ Standard-0101.03 automatically
comply with NIJ Standard-0101.04?

A: No. NIJ still continues to recognize the compliance status of models
found to comply with NIJ Standard-0101.03 to that edition of the standard.
If a manufacturer desires to submit a model of 0101.03-compliant armor to
NLECTC for testing to 0101.04, they can, and if it is found to comply
with 0101.04, then it will be recognized as complying with both editions
of the standard.

Q: OK, but what happens if that 0101.03-compliant model fails to comply
with the requirements of 0101.04?

A: Models that comply with NIJ Standard-0101.03 cannot "lose" their
compliance status to that edition of the standard if they do not comply
with the requirements of 0101.04. The model will still be recognized as
compliant with 0101.03, but cannot be considered for further testing to
0101.04.

Q: Can manufacturers still submit new models of armor for testing to NIJ
Standard- 0101.03?

A: No. As of October 2, 2000, all models of armor submitted to NLECTC
for compliance testing will be tested in accordance with NIJ Standard-
0101.04.

Q: Is armor that complies with NIJ Standard-0101.04 "better" than armor
that complies with NIJ Standard-0101.03?

A: NO. It has only been tested to a different version of the standard. The
development of NIJ Standard-0101.04 incorporates the knowledge and
experience that has been gained in the past 13 years of armor testing, takes
into account the advances in materials and design technology that have
occurred in the industry, and updates the threats which the armor is tested
against. It is simply the next evolutionary step in the development of NIJ's
voluntary compliance testing program for ballistic-resistant armor,
ensuring that law enforcement and corrections officers have access to
armor that is safe, reliable, and meets currently defined protection needs.

Q: With the release of NIJ Standard-0101.04, does this mean that we have
to replace all the armor we have that complies with NIJ Standard-0101.03,
including those we just purchased? 

A: NO. The advent and exclusive use of NIJ Standard-0101.04 in the
Voluntary Compliance Testing Program does not imply that existing NIJ
Standard-0101.03 compliant armor is in any way unsuitable for continued
purchase and everyday use. In fact, such armor will still provide the same
proven high degree of protection and performance that NIJ Standard-
0101.03 demanded and produced. NIJ Standard-0101.03 compliant armor
should not be considered inadequate or obsolete; it is simply armor that
has not been tested and found compliant to NIJ Standard-0101.04's
different requirements.

Q: If a manufacturer offers to sell us a model that complies with NIJ
Standard-0101.03, should we purchase it?

A: If you determine that this model meets all of your protection and user
defined requirements, then there is no reason not to purchase it. NIJ
Standard-0101.03 compliant armor should not be considered inadequate or
obsolete; it is simply armor that has not been tested and found compliant
to NIJ Standard-0101.04's different requirements.

Q: I'm a correctional officer, and I'm more interested in a vest that
provides stab/puncture protection instead of ballistic protection. What
assistance can you provide?

A: For almost 30 years, NIJ has been a leader in the development and
testing of ballistic-resistant armor. In September 2000, NIJ released Stab
Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00. This standard
is the result of a 3-year collaborative effort between the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Police Scientific
Development Branch of the United Kingdom, and establishes the first
national minimum performance requirements for stab- and
puncture-resistant armor. NIJ Standard-0115.00 classifies armor into two
protection classes, spike (puncture-resistant) and edged blade. For each
protection class, there are three protection levels against which the armor
can be tested. A voluntary compliance testing program has been
established by NLECTC in accordance with this new standard, and models
found to comply are listed in the Body Armor Database at
http://www.justnet.org. 

It is also important to note that armor models found to comply with NIJ
Standard-0115.00 are also eligible for funding under the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act (BVPGA). For more details, visit the BVPGA Web
site at http://vests.ojp.gov.

Q: Who tests the armor to determine if it complies with NIJ Standards?

A: Only NIJ-approved independent testing laboratories are recognized as
official testing facilities for compliance testing to NIJ standards. A
complete list of NIJ-approved laboratories can be found on JUSTNET at
http://www.justnet.org, or call NLECTC at 800-248-2742 or
301-519-5060. 

Q: How is armor submitted for testing?

A: The manufacturer submitting an armor model 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 samples to NLECTC, where they are examined
for workmanship and labeling requirements, which are defined in the NIJ
standards. If the samples successfully complete this examination, they are
sent to the approved laboratory with whom the manufacturer has
negotiated the testing contract. The laboratory performs the 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 the Personal Body Armor Consumer Product List
(CPL), which can be accessed at http://www.justnet.org. 

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 then 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 standards. Manufacturers and other interested parties
also will 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. It is also important to note that laboratories are approved to
perform testing in accordance with a specific NIJ standard. A test
laboratory must complete a separate application and go through the
complete approval process for each NIJ standard for which it wishes to
perform testing.

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

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

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

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 Federal Bureau of Investigation (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 (Y).

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.

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

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-0101.04 (or current edition)
or NIJ Standard- 0115.00 for stab-resistant armor.

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-0101.04 or 0115.00, must be incorporated in this document or
separate purchase document at the time of award of said contract.

Prebid 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 warrantied 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 warrantied for a
minimum of (number spelled out) (number) years to meet the
ballistic-resistant and deformation requirements of NIJ Standard-0101.04
(or NIJ Standard-0115.00 for stab-resistant models).

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 specifications

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-0101.04 (or
current edition) or NIJ Standard-0115.00 for stab-resistance.

B) Be labeled in accordance with the requirements of NIJ
Standard-0101.04 or NIJ Standard-0115.00, 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 the 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.[1]
(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-0101.04 or
NIJ Standard-0115.00.

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.

1. The risk of loss if goods are damaged or lost in transit with the Selller or
the Buyer, depending on the shipping terms negotiated. The term F.O.B.
means Free on Board, which means only that the Seller will place goods in
or on the carrier's equipment without cost to the Buyer.

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

Appendix E. Body Armor Inspection Sheet

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

Appendix F. Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory
Council

Chair: Carl R. Baker

Vice Chair: Michael Maloney

Vice Chair: Kenneth Bayless

Francisco J. Alarcon
Deputy Secretary
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Tallahassee, Florida

Joseph Anderson
Director of Metropolitan Public School Security
Nashville, Tennessee

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

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

Chief Kenneth Bayless
Field Operations Region III 
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Monterey Park, California

Maj. Bob Beach
Director
Fairfax Criminal Justice Academy
Chantilly, Virginia

Simon J. Beardsley
Technology Review Coordinator
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Huntsville, Texas

Claire F. Bee, Jr.
Assistant Commissioner
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Albany, New York

Joseph P. Bonino
Commanding Officer
Jail Division
Los Angeles Police Department
Los Angeles, California

James Brock
Director
Southeastern Public Safety Institute
St. Petersburg, Florida

Bob Brown
Chief
National Institute of Corrections Academy Division
Longmont, Colorado

G.C. "Buck" Buchanan
Sheriff
Yavapai County Sheriff's Office
Prescott, Arizona

Tom Burgoyne
Ohio County Sheriff
Wheeling, West Virginia

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

Robert E. Cansler
Staff Attorney
City of Concord
Concord, North Carolina

Nick Cartwright
Director 
Explosive Detection Systems --Implementation Program 
Transport Canada 
Ottawa, Ontario 
Canada 

Steve Chianesi
Assistant Director
Rhode Island Judicial Systems and Sciences
Rhode Island Supreme Court
The Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal
Providence, Rhode Island

Chief Merino Ciccone
Rome Police Department
Rome, New York

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

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

Chief Gregory G. Cowart
Millbrae Police Department
Millbrae, California

David R. Crist
Warden
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Bayport, Minnesota

Steven F. Cumoletti
Staff Inspector
New York State Police
Planning and Research Section
Albany, New York

Capt. Michael Czerwinsky
El Paso Police Department
El Paso, Texas

Patrick J. Devlin
Assistant Chief
Criminal Justice Bureau
New York City Police Department
New York, New York

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

Chief Lee Doehring
Leavenworth Police Department
Leavenworth, Kansas

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

George Drake
Region Manager
Adult Probation and Parole Division
New Mexico Corrections Department
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Chief Richard D. Easley
Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department
Kansas City, Missouri

Chief Richard Emerson
Chula Vista Police Department
Chula Vista, California

Larry Erikson
Executive Director
Washington Association/Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
Olympia, Washington

Chief Joseph G. Estey
Hartford Police Department
White River Junction, Vermont

Chief Charlie Fannon
Wasilla Police Department
Wasilla, Alaska 

James Fortner
Administrative Lieutenant
Tennessee Department of Correction
Nashville, Tennessee

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

Wendell M. "Pete" France
Assistant Warden
Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center
Baltimore, Maryland

Steve Gaffigan, Sr.
Executive Director
Quality Assurance
Metropolitan Police Department
Washington, D.C.

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

Gerald M. Gasko
Deputy Director
Colorado Department of Corrections
Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Doreen Geiger
Assistant to the Secretary for Facility Siting and 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

Mel Grieshaber
Legislative Director
Michigan Corrections Organization/SEIU
Lansing, Michigan

Chief Timothy Grimmond
El Segundo Police Department
El Segundo, California

Capt. Mike Grossman 
Emergency Operations Bureau
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 
Los Angeles, California

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

Ben Hathcock
Supervisory Special Agent
FBI Academy 
Quantico, Virginia

Capt. Sid Heal
Special Enforcement Bureau
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
Los Angeles, California

Jaime Herrera
Security Coordinator
Idaho State Department of Corrections
Boise, Idaho

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

Chief James E. Hill
Port Authority Transit Police Department
Camden, New Jersey

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

Irving Hodnett
Chief Engineer
FBI Engineering Research Facility
Quantico, Virginia

Chief Stanley Hook
Smyrna Police Department
Smyrna, Georgia

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

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

Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske
Seattle Police Department
Seattle, Washington

Andrew Keyser
Chief Information Officer
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

James Klein
Houston Police Department
Inspection Division
Houston, Texas

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

Henry C. Lee, M.D.
Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science
University of New Haven
West Haven, Connecticut

Calvin Lightfoot
Warden
Allegheny County Jail
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Kevin Lothridge
Director of Strategic Development
National Forensic Science Technology Center
Largo, Florida

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

Michael T. Maloney
Commissioner
Massachusetts Department of Corrections
Milford, Massachusetts

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

Harlin McEwen
Ithaca, New York

Donald McLellan, Ph.D.
Executive Lieutenant
Oakland County Sheriff's Office
Pontiac, Michigan

Maj. Rob Miller
Kentucky State Police
Frankfort, Kentucky

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

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

Roger L. Payne
Chief Deputy 
New Mexico State Police
Santa Fe, New Mexico

John J. Pennella
Director
Applied Technology Division
U.S. Customs Service
Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

Janet Quist
Business Director
Public Technology Inc.
Washington, D.C.

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

Sheriff Dave Reichart
King County Sheriff's Office
Seattle, Washington 

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

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

Daniel N. Rosenblatt 
Executive Director
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Alexandria, Virginia

Tibby Roth
Chief Inspector
Special Technologies Officer
Research and Development Division
Israel Police 
Israel

Raul Russi
Commissioner
City of New York Department of Probation
Brooklyn, New York

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

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

Wayne Scott
Executive Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Huntsville, Texas

Lawrence Seligman
Chief, Tribal Police
Tohono O'odham Nation Police
Sells, Arizona

Charles E. Simmons
Secretary
Kansas Department of Corrections
Topeka, Kansas

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

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

Richard Stroker
General Counsel
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Columbia, South Carolina

George M. Taft, Jr.
Director
Alaska Department of Public Safety
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory
Anchorage, Alaska

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

Tim Thomas
Assistant Division Chief
Technology Security Division
U.S. Secret Service
Washington, D.C.

Dennis Tucker
Fleet Manager
Illinois State Police
Springfield, Illinois

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

James Upchurch
Chief
Bureau of Security Operations
Florida Department of Corrections
Tallahassee, Florida

Judith Uphoff
Director
Wyoming Department of Corrections
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Gerald D. Weinzatl
Assistant Superintendent
Milwaukee County House of Corrections
Franklin, Wisconsin

Carl A. Wicklund
Executive Director 
American Probation and Parole Association
Lexington, Kentucky

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

David Williams
Deputy Superintendent for Correctional Services
Coxsackie Correctional Facility
West Coxsackie, New York

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

Appendix G. National Armor Advisory Board Member List

Chair: R. Gil Kerlikowske

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

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

Sgt. Dan Callahan
Arlington County Sheriff's Office
Arlington, Virginia

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

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

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

David Hand
Sales Account Manager
Twaron Products
Conyers, Georgia

Ben Hathcock
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Firearms Training Unit
Quantico, Virginia

Sid Heal
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office
Los Angeles, California

R. Gil Kerlikowske
Chief of Police
Seattle Police Department
Seattle, Washington

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

Jim Murray
DHB Armor Group
Norris, Tennessee

Linn Murray
Ballistic Engineer
Honeywell
Colonial Heights, Virginia

Kevin Neal
Armor Marketing Leader
Honeywell
Colonial Heights, Virginia

Chief Darrell L. Sanders
Frankfort Police Department
Frankfort, Illinois

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

Dale Taylor
American Body Armor & Equipment Co.
Jacksonville, Florida

Navin Tejani
Senior Research Associate
DuPont Advanced Fiber Systems
Richmond, Virginia

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

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

Appendix H. About the National Institute of Justice

NIJ is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of
Justice and is the only Federal agency solely dedicated to researching
crime control and justice issues. NIJ provides objective, independent,
nonpartisan, evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges
of crime and justice, particularly at the State and local levels. NIJ's
principal authorities are derived from the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 3721-3722).

NIJ's Mission

In partnership with others, NIJ's mission is to prevent and reduce crime,
improve law enforcement and the administration of justice, and promote
public safety. By applying the disciplines of the social and physical
sciences, NIJ--

 o Researches the nature and impact of crime and delinquency.

 o Develops applied technologies, standards, and tools for criminal justice
practitioners.

 o Evaluates existing programs and responses to crime.

 o Tests innovative concepts and program models in the field.

 o Assists policymakers, program partners, and justice agencies.

 o Disseminates knowledge to many audiences.

NIJ's Strategic Direction and Program Areas

NIJ is committed to five challenges as part of its strategic plan: 1)
rethinking justice and the processes that create just communities; 2)
understanding the nexus between social conditions and crime; 3) breaking
the cycle of crime by testing research-based interventions; 4) creating the
tools and technologies that meet the needs of practitioners; and 5)
expanding horizons through interdisciplinary and international
perspectives. In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is
involved in the following program areas: crime control and prevention,
drugs and crime, justice systems and offender behavior, violence and
victimization, communications and information technologies, critical
incident response, investigative and forensic sciences (including DNA),
less-than-lethal technologies, officer protection, education and training
technologies, testing and standards, technology assistance to law
enforcement and corrections agencies, field testing of promising programs,
and international crime control. NIJ communicates its findings through
conferences and print and electronic media.

NIJ's Structure

The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. The NIJ Director establishes the Institute's objectives, guided by
the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the U.S. Department of
Justice, and the needs of the field. NIJ actively solicits the views of
criminal justice and other professionals and researchers to inform its
search for the knowledge and tools to guide policy and practice.

NIJ has three operating units. The Office of Research and Evaluation
manages social science research and evaluation and crime mapping
research. The Office of Science and Technology manages technology
research and development, standards development, and technology
assistance to State and local law enforcement and corrections agencies.
The Office of Development and Communications manages field tests of
model programs, international research, and knowledge dissemination
programs. NIJ 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.

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice, please contact:
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
800-851-3420
E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).
If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.

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

Appendix I. 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 on 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 NLECTC. 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.justnet.org

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

Appendix J. About the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center System

The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
(NLECTC) system exists to support the Nation's structure of State and
local law enforcement and corrections. The United States has more than
18,000 law enforcement agencies, 50 State correctional systems, and
thousands of prisons and jails. The fragmented nature of law enforcement
and corrections impedes the dissemination of valuable new information,
fosters a patchwork marketplace that discourages the commercialization of
new technologies, and underscores the need for uniform performance
standards for equipment and technologies.

The National Institute of Justice's (NIJ's) Office of Science and
Technology (OS&T) created NLECTC in 1994 as a national system of
technology centers that are clearinghouses of information and sources of
technology assistance and that also attend to special needs, including
technology commercialization and standards development.

The NLECTC system's purpose is to determine the needs of the law
enforcement and corrections communities and assist them in
understanding, using, and benefitting from new and existing technologies
that, increasingly, are vital levers of progress in criminal justice.
NIJ/OS&T and the NLECTC system are the only current programs
developed by the Federal Government that focus solely on the
development and transfer of technologies to State and local law
enforcement and corrections.

NLECTC is a program of NIJ, the research and development arm of the
U.S. Department of Justice. The system currently consists of a national
center, five regional centers, and several speciality offices. Also
contributing to the initiatives of the center system is the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards. The centers are colocated with a host organization
or agency that specializes in one or more areas of technology research and
development.

The National Center, located in Rockville, Maryland, is the system's
information hub. Regional centers are currently located in Alaska,
California, Colorado, New York, and South Carolina. Speciality centers
located around the country deal with border matters (California),
commercialization of law enforcement and corrections technologies (West
Virginia), rural law enforcement issues (Kentucky), and standards and
testing (Maryland).

Each center shares roles with the other centers and has distinctive
characteristics. All are focused on helping law enforcement and
corrections take full advantage of technology's rapidly growing capacity to
serve the purposes of crime control and the criminal justice system.

A national body of criminal justice professionals, the Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC), helps identify
research and development priorities, thereby influencing the work of the
NLECTC system. In addition, each NLECTC center has a regional
advisory council of law enforcement and corrections officials. Together,
LECTAC and the advisory councils help to keep the NLECTC system
attentive to technological priorities and the needs of law enforcement and
corrections. They help to link the end user with the developer to create
technologies that adequately meet operational requirements and establish
which potential technologies should be pursued for development.

All of the current regional centers have distinctive roles or focus areas,
that, in many cases, are aligned with the expertise of host organizations
and agencies. The centers are currently operated under cooperative
agreements or interagency agreements with host organizations and
agencies whose employees staff the centers.

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.justnet.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
5300 International Boulevard
North Charleston, SC 29418
(p) 800-292-4385
(f) 843-760-4611
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

NLECTC-Northwest
4000 Old Seward Highway
Suite 301
Anchorage, AK 99503-6068
(p) 866-569-2969
(f) 907-569-6939
E-mail: nlectc_nw@ctsc.net

Border Research and Technology Center
1010 Second Avenue 
Suite 1920
San Diego, CA 92101
(p) 888-656-2782
(f) 888-660-2782
E-mail: brtcchrisa@aol.com

Rural Law Enforcement Technology Center (RULETC)
1908 North Main Street
Suite 115
Hazard, KY 41701
(p) 866-787-2553
(f) 606-436-6758
E-mail: ruletc@aol.com

Office of Law Enforcement Standards
100 Bureau Drive
Stop 8102
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8102
(p) 301-975-2757
(f) 301-948-0978
E-mail: oles@nist.gov

Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization
2001 Main Street
Suite 500
Wheeling, WV 26003
(p) 888-306-5382
(f) 304-231-2310
E-mail: oletc@oletc.org

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

Appendix K. 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 U.S. Departments of Justice and Commerce
based on 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 on
priorities of the criminal justice community at any given time and, as
necessary, draws on 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, to performance
reports on various speed-measuring devices, to soft 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 equipment performance, 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.

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

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

Nation 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