LAW ENFORCEMENT 

BODY ARMOR

DOJ Supports Its Use and 

Enhancements, but Could 

Strengthen Management of 

Its Related Grant Programs 

Statement of David C. Maurer, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

GAO-12-448T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
 

Page 1 GAO-12-448T 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here to discuss the findings of our report being publicly 

issued today assessing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) body armor 

initiatives.1 Nationwide, nearly 60 law enforcement officers were killed in 

2010 after firearm-related assaults, but recent data show that body armor 

has saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 

1987. Recognizing body armor as an effective tool in helping to protect 

law enforcement officers, DOJ—through its Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA) and its National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—has implemented 

initiatives, such as direct grants to states and localities to support their 

body armor use, as well as research and testing for compliance with 

standards to continuously improve body armor effectiveness. These 

initiatives have involved internal and external stakeholders, including law 

enforcement components within DOJ; components within the Department 

of Commerce and the Department of Defense (DOD)2

My testimony this morning will address the key findings from the body 

armor report that we are issuing today. Like that report, my statement will 

address (1) the body armor efforts that DOJ has under way, (2) the extent 

to which DOJ has designed internal controls to manage and coordinate 

these efforts, and (3) factors that affect body armor use and effectiveness 

and steps DOJ has taken to address them.

that conduct 

related body armor research; and private entities, such as those that 

manufacture and assist in testing body armor.

To conduct our work, we examined program data on BJA’s Bulletproof 

Vest Partnership (BVP) program for fiscal years 1999 through 2011 as 

well as its Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 

program for fiscal years 2006 through 2011. These are DOJ’s two grant 

 

1

GAO, Law Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant Management Controls 

and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program Requirements, GAO-12-353

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2012). For the purposes of this report, body armor includes 

ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant vests. The former are designed to protect against 

bullet penetrations and the trauma associated with bullet impacts. The latter are designed 

to protect against stab weapon penetrations. 

2

For prior GAO work related to Army body armor test procedures, see GAO, Warfighter 

Support: Independent Expert Assessment of Army Body Armor Test Results and 

Procedures Needed Before Fielding, GAO-10-119 (Washington D.C.: Oct.16, 2009). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-448T 

programs supporting state and local law enforcement’s purchases of body 

armor. We also examined NIJ’s procedures for setting standards and 

testing body armor for compliance with the standards and discussed with 

NIJ its research and efforts to coordinate with other body armor 

stakeholders. We interviewed officials from DOJ and 2 other federal 

agencies—the Department of Commerce and DOD—6 body armor 

manufacturers, 2 body armor testing laboratories, and 10 jurisdictions that 

receive DOJ body armor funding.3 In some of the jurisdictions, we also 

interviewed male and female law enforcement officers who wear body 

armor. Moreover, we reviewed literature on the factors that affect body 

armor use and effectiveness and discussed these factors with the officials 

that we interviewed. We assessed DOJ’s body armor policies and 

granting efforts using standards for internal control in the federal 

government and leading practices for grant management and stakeholder 

coordination.4 We conducted this work in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. More detailed information on 

the scope and methodology of our published report can be found therein.5

 

3

We selected nonprobability samples of these organizations. Unlike a random sample, a 

nonprobability sample is more deliberatively chosen, meaning that some elements of the 

population being studied have either no chance or an unknown chance of being selected 

as part of the sample. Therefore, the views that the individuals in our samples expressed 

provide valuable insight into body armor issues but are not generalizable. For the 

purposes of our study, we selected these organizations because of their involvement in 

body armor manufacturing, testing, research, and use and because of their size and 

location. 

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999); Grant Accountability Project, Guide to Opportunities 

for Improving Grant Accountability (Washington D.C.: 2005); GAO, Results-Oriented 

Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal 

Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005); and American National 

Standards Institute, United States Standards Strategy (New York: Dec. 2, 2010).

5

GAO-12-353. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-448T 

DOJ has a number of initiatives to support body armor use by state and 

local law enforcement, including grant funding, research, standards 

development, and testing programs. Two separate BJA grant programs 

provide funding to state and local law enforcement to facilitate their body 

armor purchases. The BVP program offers 2-year grants on a 

reimbursable, matching basis to state and local law enforcement 

agencies to assist in their purchasing of ballistic-resistant and stabresistant body armor.6 Generally, the JAG program provides 4-year grant 

money up front that can be used to fund body armor procurement along 

with other criminal justice activities.7

NIJ sponsors body armor research, establishes body armor performance 

standards, and oversees body armor testing for compliance. For example, 

NIJ’s research has included studies to augment ballistic materials and 

improve the fit of body armor. In addition, NIJ works with stakeholders 

such as body armor users, researchers, and developers, when revising its 

body armor performance standards. NIJ is aiming to finalize revisions to

its current stab-resistant body armor standard, originally established in 

2000, by December 2012, and expects to update its ballistic-resistant 

body armor standard, last revised in 2008, by November 2013. Lastly, NIJ 

administers a program whereby manufacturers voluntarily submit their 

body armor for testing against the pertinent NIJ standard. If the body 

armor complies with the standard and NIJ approves it, NIJ includes the 

body armor in its list of all NIJ-compliant vests. Jurisdictions that receive 

BVP funding use this list to select body armor for purchase.

Since the BVP program’s inception 

in 1999, it has reimbursed grantees $247 million for their purchases of 

nearly 1 million vests. The JAG program has provided nearly $4 billion 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, but BJA does not know how much of 

this amount grantees have spent on body armor because it is not required 

to track expenditures for specific purposes. Instead, BJA reports that from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2011, 357 grantees intended to use JAG funds 

for ballistic-resistant vest procurement, but it does not track how many 

grantees intended to purchase stab-resistant vests.

 

6

The program has generally funded, on a reimbursable basis, up to 50 percent of the cost 

of body armor a jurisdiction purchases with its BVP funds. Particular exclusions to this rule 

are discussed in GAO-12-353. Prior to 2008, the BVP program gave grantees up to 4 

years to spend their awards.

7

For additional information on the JAG program, see GAO-12-353 as well as GAO, 

Recovery Act: Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance Grant 

Program Impact, GAO-11-87 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 2010).

To Support Body 

Armor Use, DOJ 

Provides Grant 

Funding, Supports 

Research, Sets 

Standards, and 

Conducts Compliance 

Testing
 

Page 4 GAO-12-448T 

DOJ has designed several controls, consistent with internal control 

standards, to manage and coordinate BJA’s and NIJ’s body armor 

activities; however, we recommended five actions that BJA could take to 

strengthen its practices over the BVP and JAG grant programs. 

BJA designed controls for the BVP program to check the eligibility of 

grantee payment requests, help prevent improper payments to grantees, 

and ensure grantee compliance with program requirements. However, 

BJA needs to take two key actions to improve the BVP program’s internal 

controls (1) improve the management of funds from closed grants, and 

(2) expand information available to grantees on its key program 

requirements. Specifically, we reported the following:

• The BVP program has not deobligated about $27 million in balances 

from grants awarded from fiscal years 2002 through 2009 whose 

terms have ended and whose grantees are no longer eligible for 

reimbursement.8 Once a grant’s term has ended, a granting agency 

typically closes out the grant and deobligates the funds. We have 

previously reported that grant closeout is an important final point of 

accountability for grantees, ensuring that they have met all program 

requirements.9 To strengthen fund management, BJA could 

deobligate funds from grants that have closed and apply the amounts 

to new awards or reduce requests for future budgets. Given that the 

BVP program requested $30 million—and received about $23 

million—in fiscal year 2012, deobligating this $27 million could have 

significant benefits.10

 

8

A deobligation is the cancellation or downward adjustment of previously incurred 

obligations. 

In response to our audit work, BVP program 

officials told us that as of February 2012, they and their colleagues in 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer were in the process of 

examining the $27 million available for possible deobligation and 

9

See GAO, Grants Management: Attention Needed to Address Undisbursed Balances in 

Expired Grant Accounts GAO-08-432 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2008). In addition, the 

DOJ Inspector General has reported on the importance of timely grant closeout. See DOJ 

Office of the Inspector General, The Department of Justice’s Grant Closeout Process 

Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Report 07-05 (December 

2006). 

10The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-55, 

125 Stat. 552, 616, provided $24 million to the BVP program for law enforcement armor 

vests, including $1.5 million transferred directly to the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards for research, testing, and evaluation 

programs. 

DOJ Has Designed 

Several Controls and 

Coordination 

Mechanisms for its 

Body Armor 

Programs, but Could 

Further Minimize 

Management Risk
 

Page 5 GAO-12-448T 

considering how to use it. However, DOJ had not yet made a final 

decision on this matter before we finalized our February 2012 report, 

and officials stated a decision likely would not be made until 

September 2012. Thus, we recommended that BJA deobligate 

undisbursed funds from grants in the BVP program that have closed. 

DOJ concurred with the recommendation and stated that in the 

absence of statutory restrictions stating otherwise, it intends to use 

the deobligated, undisbursed BVP program funds to supplement the 

appropriation amounts in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

• BVP program rules, such as those requiring that grantees maintain 

documentation of their vest purchases for 3 years, are not as well 

publicized as they could be. This information appears in “frequently 

asked questions” guides and is provided when grantees call for 

technical assistance in administering their grants. However, the 

requirements do not appear in the grantee instructional manual or in 

the online system that grantees and BJA use to manage the grant 

funds. Emphasizing the need to comply with grant award 

requirements and including clear terms and conditions in funding 

award documents are leading practices to improve grant 

accountability and fundamental to internal control standards.11

We also made three recommendations for DOJ to improve controls over 

the JAG program related to body armor. Specifically, we reported the 

following:

We 

recommended that BJA expand information available to BVP grantees 

on the current program requirements for jurisdictions to retain 

documentation on all transactions for at least 3 years. DOJ concurred 

with the recommendation and stated that it will add language in the 

fiscal year 2012 BVP program requirements to address this issue. 

• The JAG program and the BVP program have different policies for the 

use and purchase of DOJ-funded body armor. Unlike the BVP 

program, the JAG program does not require that grantees purchasing 

body armor have policies in place mandating that officers wear the 

armor or that the grantees purchase body armor that is NIJ compliant. 

We have previously identified establishing mutually reinforcing 

strategies and compatible policies and procedures as key 

 

11See GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. See also, Grant Accountability Project, Guide to 

Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-448T 

coordination practices.12 Harmonizing requirements across the BVP 

and JAG programs could improve consistency in the department’s 

efforts to ensure law enforcement officers’ safety. To address this 

issue, we recommended that BJA establish requirements within the 

JAG program that grantees using the money for body armor 

purchases have written mandatory wear policies in place and that 

they purchase only body armor that is NIJ compliant. DOJ generally 

agreed with the recommendation. It stated that it had sufficient legal 

authority to establish these requirements in the JAG program, but 

noted that it plans to implement such requirements carefully to avoid 

impeding the ability of local jurisdictions to purchase ballistic 

equipment that does not have associated standards, such as K-9 

ballistic vests, and to accommodate other JAG program 

requirements.13

• BJA does not document its procedures to monitor JAG grantees’ 

compliance with the requirement that recipients not use JAG funding 

toward the match portion of BVP grants they may also receive. 

Currently, BJA grant managers perform desk reviews, in which 

officials review grant documentation off-site, to assess grantees’ 

compliance with general programmatic requirements. Documenting 

grant managers’ desk review procedures for monitoring compliance 

with this requirement would be consistent with standards for internal 

control in the federal government. In addition, such documentation 

could help ensure consistency in grant managers’ monitoring 

practices, which in turn could help BJA better ensure grantees’ 

compliance with JAG program requirements. Therefore, we 

recommended that BJA document procedures for its desk reviews 

when it checks on compliance with program requirements. DOJ 

agreed in part with this recommendation, acknowledging the 

importance of close monitoring. However, DOJ stated that it did not 

believe desk reviews are the best mechanism for ensuring that 

grantees are separately tracking and administering JAG and BVP 

funds and stated that it would develop and institute additional controls 

 

12See GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration Among Government Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 

2005).

13K-9 ballistic vests are protective vests that dogs working with law enforcement officers 

wear while on duty. Vests modified for K-9 units have not been tested by NIJ.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-448T 

beyond desk reviews to ensure grantees’ compliance. 

• BJA has limited visibility over which JAG grantees intend to use their 

awards for body armor purchases. Currently, BJA—along with several 

other bureaus and offices within the department—uses an online 

system, known as the Grants Management System, to track JAG 

spending across more than 150 specific categories—each associated 

with a “project identifier.” Although “bulletproof vest” is among the 

project identifiers, no project identifier exists that could be used for 

stab-resistant vests. BJA could enhance its tracking, consistent with 

standards for internal control, to know which grantees intended to use 

the JAG funds to purchase either type of body armor. With improved 

tracking, program officials would be better positioned to target their 

monitoring and ensure grantees’ compliance with existing or any 

newly added body armor requirements. Thus, we recommended that 

BJA establish a project identifier within the Grants Management 

System to track stab-resistant body armor. DOJ concurred with this 

recommendation and stated that it will add a project identifier for stabresistant vests during the fiscal year 2012 JAG program application 

process.

There are multiple factors that affect body armor’s use and effectiveness, 

including

• law enforcement agencies’ policies, such as those mandating wear;

• the comfort; fit, and coverage of the vests;

• degradation caused by wear and tear;

• care and maintenance; and

• exposure to environmental conditions.

For example, based on our interviews and research on these factors, we 

reported that body armor can create discomfort for an officer through 

reduced mobility, increased weight, heat build up under the armor, and 

chafing. As a result, such discomfort may cause an officer to discontinue 

wearing the armor. In addition, if the body armor is poorly fitting, it can 

create both discomfort and affect total coverage area. Further, designing 

comfortable, well-fitting body armor for female law enforcement officers is 

particularly challenging, according to the six body armor manufacturers in 

our sample.

We also reported on the steps DOJ has taken to address these factors. 

Among other efforts, DOJ has disseminated guidance and periodically 

revised its standards and compliance test procedures to incorporate the 

Fit and Coverage Are 

Some of the Factors 

Affecting Body Armor 

Use and Effectiveness 

and DOJ Has Related 

Efforts to Address 

These Factors
 

Page 8 GAO-12-448T 

latest technology. In particular, NIJ’s body armor guidance provides 

information on elements of proper fit and advises agencies to inspect 

body armor routinely to ensure proper fit. In addition, NIJ is funding a 

study on the effect of body armor use on core body temperature to gain a 

better understanding of comfort issues. NIJ is also funding the 

development of test methods for assessing the performance of contoured 

body armor designs for females and plans to discuss the issue of 

including ergonomic or “wearability” test protocols as it considers 

revisions of the ballistic-resistant body armor standard.

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9627 or MaurerD@gao.gov. Contact points for

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions 

to this testimony are Joy Booth, Assistant Director; Juan Tapia-Videla, 

Analyst-in-Charge; and Heather May. Additional contributions to our 

detailed report include Lydia Araya, Ivelisse Aviles, Willie Commons III, 

Katherine Davis, and Stanley Kostyla.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441052)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.