LAW ENFORCEMENT 

BODY ARMOR

DOJ Could Enhance 

Grant Management 

Controls and Better 

Ensure Consistency in 

Grant Program 

Requirements 

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2012

GAO-12-353

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-353, a report to 

congressional requesters 

February 2012 

LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY ARMOR

DOJ Could Enhance Grant Management Controls 

and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program 

Requirements 

Why GAO Did This Study

Since 1987, body armor—in the form 

of ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant 

vests—has reportedly saved the lives 

of over 3,000 law enforcement officers 

nationwide. Recognizing body armor’s 

value, the Department of Justice 

(DOJ)—through its Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) and its National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ)—has 

implemented initiatives to support state 

and local law enforcement agencies’ 

use of body armor. GAO was asked to 

examine (1) DOJ’s efforts to support 

the use of body armor, (2) the extent to 

which DOJ has designed controls to 

manage and coordinate these efforts, 

and (3) the factors affecting body 

armor’s use and effectiveness and 

steps DOJ has taken to address them. 

GAO reviewed information on DOJ’s

efforts, and interviewed officials from

BJA, NIJ, 6 manufacturers, 2 

laboratories, 3 law enforcement 

associations, 10 state and local 

jurisdictions, and 12 stakeholders in 

and outside of government. GAO

selected these organizations

nonrandomly based in part on their 

size, and location. GAO also examined

body armor literature on key factors 

affecting body armor’s use and 

effectiveness and reviewed DOJ’s 

efforts to address these factors. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that among other 

actions, DOJ deobligate undisbursed 

funds from grants in the BVP program 

that have closed, establish consistent 

requirements within its body armor 

grant programs, and track grantees’ 

intended stab-resistant vest purchases. 

DOJ generally agreed with the 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has a number of initiatives to support body 

armor use by state and local law enforcement, including funding, research, 

standards development, and testing programs. Two Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA) grant programs provide funding to state and local law enforcement to

facilitate their body armor purchases. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) 

program offers 2-year grants on a reimbursable basis. The Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program provides 4-year grant money 

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

criminal justice activities. Since the BVP program’s inception in 1999, it has 

reimbursed grantees about $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. 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. The National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsors body armor research, establishes body armor 

performance standards, and oversees body armor testing for compliance.

DOJ designed several internal controls to manage and coordinate BJA’s and 

NIJ’s body armor activities, but could take steps to strengthen them, consistent 

with standards for internal control. For example, the BVP program has not 

deobligated about $27 million in undisbursed funds from grant awards whose 

terms have ended. To strengthen fund management, DOJ could deobligate 

these funds for grants that have closed and, for example, apply the amounts to 

new awards or reduce requests for future budgets. Also, unlike the BVP program, 

the JAG program does not require that the body armor purchased be NIJ

compliant or that officers be mandated to wear the armor purchased. To promote 

officer safety and harmonize the BVP and JAG programs, DOJ could establish

consistent body armor requirements. 

Factors affecting body armor use and effectiveness include law enforcement 

agencies’ policies mandating wear; the comfort, fit, and coverage of the vests; 

degradation caused by wear and tear; and exposure to environmental conditions. 

Among other efforts to address these factors, DOJ has revised its standards and 

compliance tests to incorporate the latest technology. 

Examples of Body Armor

View GAO-12-353. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Letter 1 

Background 4

DOJ Provides Funding, Sponsors Research, Sets Standards, and 

Conducts Compliance Testing to Support Law Enforcement’s 

Use of Body Armor 7

DOJ Has Controls and Coordination Mechanisms for Its Body 

Armor Efforts but Could Take Actions to Further Reduce 

Management Risks 15

DOJ Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Affect the Use and 

Effectiveness of Body Armor 32

Conclusions 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 37

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Appendix II Types of Law Enforcement Body Armor by Level of Ballistic 

Performance 45

Appendix III Performance Levels of Law Enforcement Stab-Resistant Body Armor 46

Appendix IV Tumbler Used to Condition Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor before 

Testing 47

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Justice 48

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 52

Tables

Table 1: Groups and Committees Currently Involved in NIJ’s 

Process to Update Body Armor Standards 13

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Table 2: Stab-Resistant Body Armor Performance Levels 46

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Ballistic- and Stab-Resistant Body Armor 5

Figure 2: Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor Mounted on Clay for 

Testing Purposes 12

Figure 3: BVP Program Awards and Disbursements from Fiscal 

Years 1999 through 2011 18

Figure 4: Status of $93 Million in Undisbursed BVP Funding, Fiscal 

Years 1999 through 2011 20

Figure 5: NIJ Compliance Testing Process 30

Abbreviations

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance 

BVP Bulletproof Vest Partnership

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

GMS Grants Management System

IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police

JAG Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 

OAAM Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management

OJP Office of Justice Programs

NIJ National Institute of Justice

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLECTC National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

 Center

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

STC Special Technical Committee

SAA state administering agency

TSWG Technical Support Working Group

UV ultraviolet

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.
Page 1 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

February 15, 2012

Congressional Requesters

Firearms continue to be one of the most dangerous threats faced by 

federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, according to Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data. In 2010, the most recent year for 

which complete data are available, the FBI reported that 56 law 

enforcement officers were killed nationwide in violent encounters and that 

all but one of these deaths was caused by a firearm.1 Preliminary data 

collected by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund show 

that in 2011, 68 officers were killed by firearms.2 Body armor can help 

protect officers from firearm assaults.3 A study conducted by a RAND 

Corporation researcher found that officers who do not routinely wear body 

armor are 3.4 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury from a torso shot 

than officers who do.4

 

1

FBI, “Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed: Type of Weapon, 2001-2010,” Law 

Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2010, table 27 (Washington, D.C.: 2011), 

accessed December 29, 2011, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka2010/tables/table27-leok-feloniously-type-of-weapon-01-10.xls.

In addition, data collected in part by the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) indicate 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, the Department of Justice (DOJ)—

through its Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and its National Institute of 

2

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is a nonprofit organization that 

maintains a database of officer deaths and conducts research into officer fatality trends to 

provide information that will help promote law enforcement safety. FBI and National Law 

Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund data are not directly comparable. FBI data include 

only incidents where officers were killed by a firearm during a felonious assault, while 

National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund data do not specify whether the 

circumstances of the officers’ deaths were felonious. 

3

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.

4

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit nonpartisan institution that conducts research and 

analysis on a range of policy issues. Tom LaTourrette, “The Life-Saving Effectiveness of 

Body Armor for Police Officers,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, vol. 

7, no. 10 (2010).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Justice (NIJ)—has implemented initiatives to promote and support state 

and local law enforcement’s use of body armor. 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)5

You requested that we review DOJ’s law enforcement body armor 

initiatives. In response, this report answers the following questions: 

(1) What efforts does DOJ have under way to support state and local law 

enforcement’s use of body armor? (2) To what extent has DOJ designed 

controls over these efforts and coordinated them with stakeholders within 

and outside of the department? (3) What factors affect body armor’s use 

and effectiveness and what steps has DOJ taken to address these 

factors?

that conduct related 

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

and assist in testing body armor.

To address all three questions we obtained and assessed body armorrelated documents from BJA and NIJ, such as program requirements and 

budget information for fiscal years 1999 through 2011, and interviewed 

BJA and NIJ officials. In addition, we attended NIJ workshops in 2011 on 

its body armor standards and observed body armor testing firsthand. 

Further, for the first question, 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 two grant 

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

armor. Based on discussions with BJA officials concerning the reliability 

of the BVP data, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes. We also examined preliminary information from a GAO 

survey of more than 3,900 JAG grantees to determine the extent to which 

they had procured ballistic and stab-resistant body armor in fiscal year 

 

5

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 3 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

2010.6

For the second question, we assessed DOJ’s body armor policies and 

efforts using standards for internal control in the federal government and 

leading practices for grant management and stakeholder coordination.

The survey data included in this report reflect a 42 percent 

response rate and are not generalizable to all JAG grantees.

7

We also discussed body armor efforts and coordination issues with 

officials from DOJ’s law enforcement components, including the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Bureau of Prisons; the 

Drug Enforcement Administration; the FBI; and the U.S. Marshals 

Service. Additionally, we interviewed officials from 3 law enforcement 

associations, 6 body armor manufacturers, 2 body armor testing 

laboratories, and 10 jurisdictions that receive DOJ body armor funding. In 

particular, with officials from state and local jurisdictions, we discussed 

body armor funding, policy, selection, procurement, and use. When 

possible, we discussed body armor use with male and female law 

enforcement officers who wear body armor. We selected these types of 

organizations because of their involvement in body armor manufacturing, 

testing, and use. We selected the nonprobability samples of these 

organizations based primarily on size and location.8

 

6

Survey of Indigent Defense Funding from Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, 

GAO (2012). This survey will be completed in February 2012 and the results will be 

published in a forthcoming GAO report on indigent defense. Indigent defense refers to 

activities that help ensure indigent defendants are afforded their right to counsel in 

criminal cases, such as hiring additional public defenders, investigators, or other support 

staff; providing training for public defenders; or making technological improvements in 

defenders’ offices or systems.

Thus, although the 

views of the individuals in our samples provide valuable insight into body 

armor issues, they are not generalizable. We also interviewed officials 

from DOD and the Department of Commerce involved in body armor 

research, standards, and testing to discuss their efforts and the extent to 

which they coordinate with DOJ.

7

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). 

8

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. App. I contains more information on the 

rationale we used to choose our sample.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

For the third question, we reviewed literature on the factors that affect 

body armor use and effectiveness and discussed these factors with the 

officials that we interviewed for the second question. More details on our 

scope and methodology appear in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 through February 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Body armor for law enforcement applications includes ballistic-resistant 

and stab-resistant body armor—usually worn in the form of a vest—that 

provides coverage and protection primarily for the torso. Ballistic-resistant 

body armor protects against bullet penetrations and the blunt trauma 

associated with bullet impacts.9 This body armor includes soft body armor 

that protects against handgun bullets and less flexible tactical body armor 

composed of soft and hard components that protects against rifle 

bullets.10

 

9

See video (

Stab-resistant body armor protects against knives or spikes. 

Figure 1 depicts examples of ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body 

armor. 

www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588451) showing how ballisticresistant body armor protects against bullet penetrations and blunt trauma.

10See video (www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588454) depicting the difference 

between soft and tactical body armor.

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Figure 1: Examples of Ballistic- and Stab-Resistant Body Armor 

DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has two units responsible for the 

department’s body armor efforts—BJA and NIJ—whose initiatives will be 

discussed in greater detail later in this report. BJA, in turn, has two 

separate grant programs that support, either directly or indirectly, state 

and local law enforcement’s body armor purchases: (1) the BVP program 

and (2) the JAG program.

DOJ created the BVP program following enactment of the Bulletproof 

Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998.11

 

11Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-181, 112 Stat. 512.

The legislation authorized BJA to 

provide grants on a competitive basis to state and local law enforcement 

agencies to assist in their purchasing of ballistic-resistant and stabresistant body armor that complies with NIJ body armor standards. 

Currently, funds available for the BVP program are awarded to each 

qualifying unit of local government with fewer than 100,000 residents and 

any remaining funds available are awarded to other qualifying 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

applicants.

12 Appropriations for BVP funding are provided under “no-year 

authority,” but the BVP program currently gives state and local 

jurisdictions 2 years to use their awards.13 The program has generally 

funded, on a reimbursable basis, up to 50 percent of the cost of the body 

armor a jurisdiction procures with its available BVP funds.14

DOJ established the JAG program following enactment of the Violence 

Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, 

which merged the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 

Enforcement Assistance Program with the Local Government Law 

Enforcement Block Grants program.15 The JAG program is the leading 

source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. 

Appropriations for JAG funding also are provided under no-year authority 

and the JAG program gives state and local jurisdictions 4 years to use 

their awards.16

 

1242 U.S.C. § 3796//(g). Under Pub. L. No. 105-181, § 3, 112 Stat. 512, 513-14, the 

original legislation required at least half of the funds available to be awarded to units of 

local government with fewer than 100,000 residents. The original requirement was 

subsequently amended in the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 

106-517, § 3(b), 114 Stat. 2407, 2407-08 (Nov. 13, 2000), to the current requirement of 

awarding funds available to each qualifying unit of local government with fewer than 

100,000 residents and any remaining funds available to other qualifying applicants.

JAG provides state, tribal, and local governments with 

funding to support a range of program areas, including law enforcement; 

prosecution and courts; prevention and education; corrections and 

community corrections; drug treatment and enforcement; planning, 

evaluation, and technology improvement; and crime victim and witness 

initiatives. In the law enforcement program area, among other things, 

grantees can use JAG funding to procure body armor. The program 

provides 60 percent of the JAG awards directly to the state agencies that 

administer JAG funds—known as state administering agencies (SAA)—

13Prior to 2008, the BVP program gave grantees up to 4 years to spend their awards. 

14Jurisdictions having 2009 and 2010 BVP award funds available may request a financial 

hardship waiver when requesting payment if they meet criteria of financial or natural 

hardship and receive up to 100 percent of the cost of each vest submitted for 

reimbursement if this cost is not greater than $1,200, excluding taxes, shipping and 

handling fees (if any). 

15Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. 

L. No. 109-162, § 1111, 119 Stat. 2960, 3094-3102.

1642 U.S.C. § 3751(f). The period of a grant shall be 4 years, except that renewals and 

extensions beyond that period may be granted at the discretion of the Attorney General.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

and 40 percent of the awards directly to local units of government. Local 

recipients of JAG funding can receive money either as a direct payment 

from the JAG program, as a pass-through from the SAA, or, in some 

cases, from both the program and the SAA.17

DOJ, through NIJ, establishes and updates voluntary minimum 

performance standards for ballistic-and stab-resistant body armor, 

conducts testing against these standards to ensure that body armor 

complies with them, and sponsors research that includes how well body 

armor protects officers in the line of duty and where improvements may 

be needed.18 NIJ works on these efforts with experts in academia and 

other federal agencies, such as the Department of Commerce and DOD. 

In particular, the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) has supported NIJ’s body armor 

research, performance standards, and compliance testing efforts. DOD’s 

Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), which leverages the 

knowledge and research capacity of body armor experts from DOD and 

other federal agencies, has also supported NIJ’s body armor efforts.

 

17GAO, Recovery Act: Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance 

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

18A fuller discussion of the NIJ standards appears in a later section of this report. 

DOJ Provides 

Funding, Sponsors 

Research, Sets 

Standards, and 

Conducts Compliance 

Testing to Support 

Law Enforcement’s 

Use of Body Armor
 

Page 8 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

From the inception of the BVP program in fiscal year 1999 through fiscal 

year 2011, the program awarded about $340 million to help state and 

local jurisdictions procure nearly 1 million vests to protect their law 

enforcement officers.19

In fiscal year 2011, the BVP program implemented a policy that requires 

that jurisdictions have mandatory wear policies in place to secure awards, 

which means that law enforcement agencies must establish rules about 

when and under what circumstances body armor must be worn.

Specifically, the program awarded large 

jurisdictions about $131 million and small jurisdictions nearly $208 million, 

which is consistent with the statutory provision of the program favoring 

jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 people.

20 In 

addition, the program requires that the jurisdictions use this funding to 

purchase only ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor that 

complies with current NIJ standards. Jurisdictions can only use BVP 

funds to purchase one vest per officer over the course of their vest 

replacement cycles at a maximum cost of $2,250 per vest.21 Finally, the 

BVP program requires that when procuring body armor with BVP awards 

recipients do not combine BVP and JAG funding.22

 

19The BVP program awarded fiscal year 2011 funds at the beginning of the next fiscal 

year. It plans to follow the same pattern and award fiscal year 2012 funds at the beginning 

of the next fiscal year.

Jurisdictions apply for 

BVP awards and reimbursable payments through the online BVP system.

20Two of the law enforcement agencies whose officials we met with in the 10 juris dictions 

implemented a mandatory wear policy in response to the BVP requirement. Seven of the 

other law enforcement agencies whose officials we met with already had mandatory wear 

policies in place. One law enforcement agency did not provide information on its body 

armor policy.

21Jurisdictions’ body armor replacement cycles can vary in length from 3 to 5 years, 

according to BJA officials.

22BVP grantees may not use JAG funding as matching funds to pay the portion of the 

body armor costs not covered by the BVP program. 

BJA’s Two Funding 

Initiatives Help 

Jurisdictions Procure Body 

Armor

The BVP Program
 

Page 9 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the JAG program awarded about 

$4 billion,23 including about $2 billion in funding from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,24 to help state and local 

jurisdictions fund a wide variety of criminal justice activities, including 

corrections, prosecution and courts, and law enforcement, among 

others.25

Within the “law enforcement” area, the JAG program permits grantees to 

purchase equipment, such as ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant vests. 

However, BJA does not know how much grantees have spent on body 

armor because it is not required to track expenditures for specific 

purposes.26 According to preliminary information from our survey of more 

than 3,900 grantees that had received JAG awards from fiscal years 2005 

through 2010, 222 of 1,639 respondents—or about 14 percent—noted 

that their jurisdictions had used JAG funds to procure ballistic-resistant 

body armor in fiscal year 2010. Another 37 grantees—or about 2 

percent—noted that they had used JAG funding for stab-resistant vest 

purchases during the same fiscal year. According to BJA, more than 

1,000 JAG awards are made each year, and from fiscal years 2006 

through 2011, 357 grantees indicated to BJA that they planned to use 

JAG awards they received during this period to procure ballistic-resistant 

vests.27

 

23The JAG program awarded fiscal year 2011 funds on or after August, 2011. JAG 

officials told us that the program likely will award fiscal year 2012 funds by the end of the 

fiscal year. 

24Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115.

25For prior GAO work related to the JAG program, see GAO-11-87. 

26GAO-11-87. 

27According to JAG officials, if a grantee’s planned use of funds differs from its actual use 

once it has received its award, the grantee is required to notify DOJ of this change and 

DOJ stores the information in its records. However, JAG officials explained that the Grants 

Management System (GMS) was designed to collect a snapshot of data and does not 

permit updates to the identifiers so JAG staff cannot amend the original project identifiers 

entered into GMS. As a result, the project identifiers may not necessarily reflect actual 

purchases through grant funds. 

The JAG Program
 

Page 10 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

NIJ’s research has led to the development of its body armor standards 

and also informs periodic revisions to these standards. In particular, NIJ’s 

research has supported studies to

• enhance compliance test methods;

• augment ballistic materials;

• improve the design, comfort, and coverage of body armor;

• explore the effect of increased body armor coverage on the ability of 

officers to comfortably carry out their duties; and

• examine the effects of physical and environmental factors, such as 

extreme temperatures, on the performance and wear and tear of body 

armor. 

NIJ also is exploring ways to enhance its body armor testing methods. 

For example NIJ is

• working through DOD’s TSWG to simulate aging on the ballistic 

resistant panels contained in hard body armor and then conducting 

age-regression studies to assess their degradation,

• looking for ways to simulate extreme temperature and other 

environmental and physical conditions and improve related testing 

mechanisms for wear and tear, and

• partnering with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada’s 

Defense Research Establishment Valcartier to develop a protocol and 

specifications for testing the capacity of a vest to withstand multiple 

gunshots within a very small target area.

NIJ also serves as an information resource on body armor by posting the 

results of its research and other relevant information to its website and 

managing listserves of body armor news for law enforcement. Based on 

its research and other information, NIJ also develops videos on body 

armor procurement and usage and hosts workshops on its standards to 

generate feedback and explore body armor issues with users, 

researchers, and developers.

NIJ’s Body Armor Efforts 

Focus on Research, Setting 

Standards, and Testing for 

Compliance

Research
 

Page 11 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

NIJ has been setting voluntary body armor performance standards since 

1972.28

The current NIJ standard for ballistic-resistant body armor establishes 

minimum performance requirements and test methods intended to protect 

against gunfire.

It is the only federal government entity that sets body armor 

standards and administers a program to test commercially available body 

armor for compliance with the standards so that the armor will perform as 

expected. NIJ is currently working to update its ballistic-resistant body 

armor standard, last revised in 2008, and its stab-resistant body armor 

standard, established in 2000.

29 The NIJ standard classifies body armor by levels of 

ballistic performance, as shown in appendix II.30

 

28Meeting these performance standards is not a requirement for manufacturers; however, 

if manufacturers voluntarily produce body armor that complies with the standards—and 

through testing, NIJ confirms its compliance—NIJ will add the manufacturers’ products to 

its list of NIJ-compliant vests. BVP grantees then can choose vests from among those on 

this list when making their purchases using BVP funds. 

For any of these 

performance levels, NIJ’s test protocol requires that the body armor 

protects against blunt trauma by specifying that a bullet does not cause 

an indentation on the back of the body armor that is greater than 44 

millimeters. NIJ measures the depth of this indentation on the clay 

material on which the body armor is mounted, as illustrated in figure 2.

29NIJ, Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.06 (Washington, D.C.: July 

2008).

30See video (www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588455) depicting types of 

ballistic-resistant body armor by levels of ballistic performance. 

Performance Standards
 

Page 12 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Figure 2: Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor Mounted on Clay for Testing Purposes

NIJ’s current stab-resistant body armor standard specifies the minimum 

performance requirements for body armor to protect the torso against 

slash and stab threats caused by knives and spikes, and describes the 

methodology that NIJ uses for testing this body armor.31

 

31NIJ, Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00 (Washington, 

D.C.: September 2000).

The standard 

classifies stab-resistant body armor into three performance levels, based 

on the body armor’s ability to prevent the stab threat from penetrating 

deep enough to injure an officer’s internal organs at different strike force 

speeds, or energy levels, as shown in appendix III. Also, the standard 

defines two protection classes—the Edge Blade class, which deals with 

threats that might be expected “on the street” from high-quality, 

commercially machined edged-knife blades—and the Spike class, which 

addresses threats that might be expected in a corrections environment 

from lower-quality knife blades and spike-style weapons improvised from 

other materials.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

To update both the ballistic- and stab-resistant body armor standards, NIJ 

is using a new process that relies on several groups, each with a distinct 

charge, as illustrated in table 1.32

Table 1: Groups and Committees Currently Involved in NIJ’s Process to Update Body Armor Standards

Group Composition Charge

Body Armor Technology 

Working Group

Made up of experienced practitioners from local, state, tribal and 

federal agencies and laboratories involved in testing body armor.

• Identify the need for a new or 

updated standard.

• Develop a list of practitioners’ 

operational needs and 

requirements.

Special Technical 

Committee (STC)

Has 15 to 20 stakeholders. They include law enforcement and 

corrections practitioners with relevant experience. They also 

include technical experts such as engineers, scientists, 

researchers, test laboratory representatives, and standard 

development experts.

Produce three documents

a

• the standard itself,

b

• a conformity assessment 

requirements document, and

• a selection and application guide.

Advisory Working Group Includes senior-level representatives from major stakeholder 

organizations, such as NIST, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), Fraternal Order of Police, National Tactical 

Officers Association, IACP, National Sheriffs’ Association, and 

American Correctional Association. 

Provide input to and review the work of 

the STC.

Steering Committee Consists of the following senior advisors: NIJ Deputy Director for 

Science and Technology; Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance; 

Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; 

Standards Executive, DHS Science and Technology; Director, 

First Responders Group, DHS Science and Technology; 

Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS; and 

Director, NIST, Office of Law Enforcement Standards.

Generally direct the updating effort and 

help to ensure coordination among 

relevant federal programs.

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information.

a

NIJ does not permit body armor industry representatives to be members of the STC. According to 

NIJ, this provision was put in place to avoid conflicts of interest and to facilitate the participation of law 

enforcement practitioners. NIJ holds workshops to inform manufactures and expects that they will 

participate in the public review of the draft standard and related documents that the STC produces. 

b

The standard contains the minimum design and performance requirements that the body armor must 

meet, as well as the test methods to be used to assess the performance. The conformity assessment 

requirements document includes all requirements for a third party independent conformity 

assessment organization to demonstrate that body armor meets the standard and typically includes 

periodic factory surveillance and follow-up testing of production items. The selection and application 

guide provides a nontechnical description of the standard and conformity assessment requirements; 

performance levels, if applicable; and guidance on procurement, selection, care, maintenance, 

training, and administrative issues. 

 

32NIJ expects to document the new process in detail in a Standard Development Process 

document in April 2012.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Regarding NIJ’s update of its stab-resistant body armor standard from 

2000, the Special Technical Committee (STC) expects to finish its draft 

documents—the standards and related requirements and guide—by June 

2012. At that point, NIJ plans to post them for public review so that body 

armor manufacturers, and any other interested parties, may submit 

comments. The STC then plans to address the comments and refine its 

draft documents and NIJ plans to have any necessary validation testing 

performed. Once NIJ reviews and publishes the updated standard and 

related documents, compliance testing of body armor against the new 

standard will begin. NIJ hopes to complete this entire process by 

December 2012. In terms of updating its ballistic-resistant body armor 

standard from 2008, NIJ’s Body Armor Technology Working Group held a 

meeting to identify needs and requirements in December 2011. NIJ 

expects to establish the STC by May 2012 and finalize the standard in 

November 2013.

To test body armor for compliance with its standards, NIJ uses its 

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center 

(NLECTC) to administer its compliance testing program.

During compliance testing, manufacturers

• register with the compliance testing program,

• submit body armor model application documents to the program, and

• send body armor model samples to an NIJ-approved laboratory.33

NIJ-approved laboratories tested 159 body armor models under the NIJ 

compliance testing program in 2010—137 models of ballistic-resistant 

body armor and 22 stab-resistant models. Of the 159 models, 81 of them, 

or about half, passed compliance testing and NIJ added them to the 

appropriate compliant product list. We include additional details on the 

controls that NIJ has designed to manage its compliance testing process 

in the next section of this report.

 

33The requirements for laboratories to obtain NIJ approval are discussed in a later section 

of this report. 

Compliance Testing
 

Page 15 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Within its BVP program, BJA has designed several controls to check the 

eligibility of grantee payment requests, help prevent improper payments 

to grantees, and ensure grantee compliance with program requirements. 

BJA has designed several controls within the online BVP system to 

ensure the eligibility of payment requests. Specifically, the online BVP 

system is designed to

• allow only jurisdictions approved through the award process to submit 

payment requests to ensure the eligibility of the jurisdictions;

• require that the highest elected official in the jurisdiction, or his or her 

designee, electronically verify payment requests to ensure 

accountability; 

• allow BVP funding recipients to request payments for purchased vest 

models approved by NIJ, which appear on the drop-down list within 

the online system, to ensure that funds are only used for NIJcompliant body armor;

• require BVP funding recipients to manually enter details from the 

purchase invoice, including the quantity, date ordered, and unit price 

to ensure that the body armor was purchased within the 2-year period 

specified in the terms of the BVP award and enhance accountability 

by allowing the request to be traced back to a specific purchase; and

• not allow BVP funding recipients to enter costs exceeding the 

authorized limit of $2,250 per vest.

To help prevent improper payments, BJA procedures call for BJA to 

review monthly batches of all payment requests submitted during the 

previous 1-month period to (1) detect anomalies between the total 

number of vests purchased by each jurisdiction and the number of 

officers in the jurisdiction and (2) identify potential duplicate requests. To 

detect anomalies in the number of vests purchased by a jurisdiction, BJA 

DOJ Has Controls and 

Coordination 

Mechanisms for Its 

Body Armor Efforts 

but Could Take 

Actions to Further 

Reduce Management 

Risks

BVP Has Designed Several 

Controls to Manage Its 

Program 

Controls to Ensure Eligibility of 

Payment Requests 

Review Procedures to Help 

Prevent Improper Payments
 

Page 16 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

is to compare the number of vests the jurisdiction purchased using BVP 

funding over the previous 3-year period to the number of officers in the 

jurisdiction. If the number of vests the jurisdiction purchased during the 3-

year period exceeds the number of officers in the jurisdiction by more 

than 10 percent, then BJA is to ask the jurisdiction to provide a response 

to support the large number of vests purchased.34

To identify potential duplicate requests, BJA is to review all payment 

requests submitted during the 1-month period under review. If BJA 

identifies two or more payment requests from one jurisdiction with similar 

total costs, numbers of vests, purchase dates, vest manufacturers, vest 

model numbers, or threat levels, then BJA is to require the jurisdiction to 

provide a response indicating whether the payment requests are 

accurate. BJA officials stated that if the responses that jurisdictions 

provide are not satisfactory, then they may request copies of the invoices 

to support the jurisdictions’ payment requests; however, BJA has not 

documented the circumstances under which it will request the invoices. 

During the course of our review, BJA officials told us they intended to 

update the written procedures to include a description of the methods for 

reviewing invoices and the additional steps they would like their staff to 

take to identify duplicate payment requests. They said they were doing 

this in response to a November 2011 review by OJP’s Office of Audit, 

Assessment, and Management (OAAM).35 BJA officials told us they 

expect to update the BVP system in March 2012 to automatically check 

for potential duplicate payment requests submitted during the previous 2 

years and that they will revise their procedures shortly thereafter. Fully 

documenting a program’s procedures would be consistent with standards 

for internal control in the federal government and could help ensure that 

BJA’s review process is consistently implemented.36

 

34BJA allows for a 10 percent variance in the number of vests purchased over a 3-year 

period as compared to the number of officers in the jurisdiction to account for officer 

turnover.

In January 2012, 

OJP officials told us that to further enhance financial controls, they 

intended to include a review of BVP payments in the financial monitoring 

35The Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) supports DOJ’s grant 

efforts by coordinating and developing grant policies across the agency and overseeing 

and monitoring grantees and grant programs. OAAM, Review of the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance Verification Process for Payment Programs (Washington, D.C.: November 

2011).

36GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

site visits that OJP’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer plans to conduct 

this year. This type of ongoing monitoring is consistent with standards for 

internal control and could be integral to helping BJA with the effective 

stewardship of government resources.37

To help ensure compliance with its new fiscal year 2011 requirement that 

jurisdictions have mandatory body armor wear policies in place, the BVP 

program asked a random sample of 110 of the 4,960 jurisdictions to 

which it awarded fiscal year 2011 funds to submit copies of their 

mandatory wear policies for BJA’s review.38 In addition, BJA officials told 

us they are randomly selecting 5 percent of the jurisdictions requesting 

payments from fiscal year 2011 awards to obtain a copy of their 

mandatory wear policy as part of BJA’s monthly payment request 

reviews. Seeking supporting documentation from a random selection of 

all grantees has been identified as a grant management best practice by 

DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General.39

BJA has designed several controls, but it could take two key actions to 

strengthen them. These are better management of undisbursed funds 

from grants in the BVP program that have closed and improved efforts to 

reduce the risk of grantee noncompliance with program requirements.

The BVP program has not deobligated undisbursed funds for future use 

from grant awards whose terms have ended. BJA could improve its 

financial controls by better managing its obligations and disbursements

for grants that have closed. 

Figure 3 shows the trends in BVP program awards (obligations) and 

disbursements, or reimbursements, from fiscal years 1999 through 2011. 

 

37GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

38According to BVP program officials, 108 of the 110 jurisdictions have provided 

mandatory wear policies. The BVP program will not make BVP funds available to the 

remaining 2 jurisdictions until the jurisdictions provide copies of their mandatory wear 

policies.

39DOJ, Office of the Inspector General, Improving the Grant Management Process 

(Washington, D.C.: February 2009).

Efforts to Ensure Compliance 

with Mandatory Wear 

Requirements 

BJA Could Enhance 

Controls over the BVP 

Program to Better Manage 

Risk

BJA Could Improve the 

Management of Undisbursed 

Funds from Grants in the BVP 

Program That Have Closed 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

In most years, disbursements generally track with obligations; however, 

they show greater differences in some years.40

Figure 3: BVP Program Awards and Disbursements from Fiscal Years 1999 through 

2011

Note: In current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

From the start of fiscal year 1999 through November 2011, the BVP 

program had awarded—or obligated—approximately $340 million to 

grantees. Of this amount, the program disbursed about $247 million to 

grantees through reimbursements. The $93 million difference reflects 

funds that BJA has awarded but for which grantees have not sought 

reimbursement. According to BJA officials, several reasons explain why 

grantees might not seek reimbursements from BJA:

 

40Because the BVP program awards funds for one fiscal year at the beginning of the next 

fiscal year, recipients had not used the bulk of their 2010 and 2011 fiscal year awards by 

November 2011, which is reflected in the drop-off in reimbursements—or disbursements—

in the figure. 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

• their grant term has not yet ended or they have been awarded an 

extension,41

• they decided not to purchase some or all of the intended vests, or

• they purchased vests using funds from other sources.

BJA reports that the $93 million in undisbursed funds can be broken down 

in the following manner (see also fig. 4):

• About $14 million in funds that BJA deobligated. BJA first awarded 

this money from fiscal years 1999 through 2008, but because 

grantees never claimed it, BJA was able to deobligate the money. 

According to BJA officials, once they deobligated the $14 million, they 

used it in two ways: (1) $8 million was used to offset a 2009 rescission 

in DOJ’s budget42

• About $27 million in funds that BJA could deobligate. BJA first 

awarded this money from fiscal years 2002 through 2009. The grant 

terms for each of these grantees have ended and as a result, 

grantees are no longer eligible for reimbursement. Thus, BJA could 

deobligate funds from these grants that have closed. 

and (2) the balance helped fund additional BVP 

program awards.

• About $52 million in funds from awards whose terms have not yet 

ended. BJA awarded the bulk of this money in either fiscal year 2010 

or fiscal year 2011 so grantees can still submit payment requests and 

the funds remain available for grantee reimbursement.

 

41Beginning with awards made in fiscal year 2008, BVP has automatically extended the 2-

year grant term for those grantees that still had undisbursed BVP award balance amounts 

from prior fiscal years. In practice, this means that if a grantee with an expiring BVP award 

applies for additional funding in a subsequent fiscal year, the program automatically 

extends the term of the award that is expiring for another 2 years and subtracts the 

amount of extended funds from the new award. 

42Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 529(b), 123 Stat. 524, 600-01. 

A rescission is legislation passed by Congress that cancels the availability of budgetary 

authority previously enacted before the authority would otherwise expire. According to 

DOJ officials, the 2009 rescission affected the entire department and DOJ looked to all of 

its programs for deobligated funds that could offset the impact. 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Figure 4: Status of $93 Million in Undisbursed BVP Funding, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2011

Note: In current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

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 considering how to use it. 

However, DOJ had not yet made a final decision on this matter before we 

finalized this report, and officials stated that a decision likely would not be 

made until September 2012. Once a grant’s term has ended, a granting 

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

Page 21 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

previously reported that grant closeout is an important final point of 

accountability for grantees, ensuring that they have met all program 

requirements.43 Closing out grants also allows agencies to identify and 

redirect funds to other projects and priorities or return the funding to the 

Treasury. In the case of the BVP program, since Congress appropriates

its funds though no-year appropriations, DOJ does not have to return 

deobligated BVP funds to the Treasury. Instead, it could enhance its 

management of BVP funding through its grants closeout process by, for 

example, redirecting any funds from closed grants to grantees in future 

award cycles or reducing the amount it requests in new appropriations.44

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.45

The BVP program lists its requirements, such as those related to 

document retention and the prohibition on combining BVP and JAG 

funds, in limited areas, thus increasing the risk that grantees will not be 

aware of them. By expanding publicity of the program requirements, BJA 

could reduce the risk of noncompliance and increase the efficiency of its 

operations. Specifically, the BVP program requires that jurisdictions retain 

documentation on all BVP transactions for at least 3 years and prohibits 

the use of JAG funding to help pay for the portion of the grantees’ costs 

that the BVP program does not cover. Currently, these requirements are 

only specifically cited in the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the 

BVP program’s website. They are not included in other grant documents, 

such as the solicitation, or online BVP system where grantees could more 

 

43See 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, 

Audit Report 07-05, (Washington, D.C.: December 2006). 

44The National Procurement Fraud Task Force’s Grant Fraud Committee, which is chaired 

by DOJ’s Inspector General, also has reported on the importance of closing grants in a 

timely manner. See the committee’s report A Guide to Grant Oversight and Best Practices 

for Combating Grant Fraud (Washington, D.C.: February 2009). 

45The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-55, 

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

including $1.5 million transferred directly to NIST’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards 

for research, testing, and evaluation programs. 

BJA Could Reduce the Risk of 

Grantee Noncompliance by 

Better Publicizing BVP 

Program Requirements 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

easily notice them and be aware.46 Emphasizing the need to comply with 

grant award requirements and including clear terms and conditions in 

funding award documents are leading practices in improving grant 

accountability and are fundamental to internal control standards.47

None of the officials we met with from the 10 jurisdictions was aware of 

any specific BVP documentation retention requirements. Further, officials 

from 4 of these jurisdictions were not aware of the prohibition on using 

JAG funds as matching funds for the BVP program. All of the officials told 

us that as a matter of practice, however, they retain their documents and 

had not been combining JAG and BVP funds. It was not within our scope 

to independently verify their compliance or assess the extent to which all 

BVP program grantees were aware of the documentation retention and 

matching fund requirements. Nevertheless, the fact that all 10 of the 

jurisdictions within our sample were unaware of the documentation 

retention requirement and 4 jurisdictions were unaware of the prohibition 

on combining BVP and JAG funds raises questions about the risks 

associated with noncompliance, such as financial mismanagement. 

Further, since the Office of the Chief Financial Officer has not yet begun 

any on-site financial monitoring of BVP grantees, it will be difficult for BJA 

to assess and mitigate these risks until the site visits are under way. BJA 

officials told us that the Help Desk had commonly referred BVP recipients 

to the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the website, but 

acknowledged that better disseminating and publicizing information would 

 BJA 

could improve its emphasis by, for example, including these requirements 

in its solicitation announcing the availability of BVP funds and in its online 

system for tracking fund use.

 

46OJP’s Financial Guide, which is a general reference manual for all DOJ awards, also 

includes information on the requirement that award recipients retain records for 

“equipment” for a 3-year period and the prohibition against commingling different sources 

of federal funding, but the guide is not specific to the BVP program and does not explicitly 

state how these provisions apply to BVP funding recipients. 

47See GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. See also Grant Accountability Project, Guide to 

Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

help ensure that BVP recipients comply with the documentation and 

matching fund requirements.48

BJA officials stated that BJA was planning to include information on the 

prohibition on using JAG funds as matching funds for the BVP program in 

the fiscal year 2012 BVP announcement and application that they plan to 

release in April 2012, partly in response to our review. The officials did 

not have plans to further publicize the documentation retention 

requirement. Emphasizing the need to comply with these program

requirements could help BJA improve grant accountability.

BJA also has developed an instructional manual to assist jurisdictions in 

using the online BVP system to complete applications and funding 

requests.49

 

48To address jurisdictions’ questions about the BVP program, BJA has established a Help 

Desk that can be reached through a toll-free telephone number or by email. From January 

to December 2011, the Help Desk received 22,663 telephone calls and 9,650 emails. 

According to the BVP program’s records, call and email volume to the Help Desk was 

generally consistent from fiscal year 2008 through 2010; however, we found that from 

2010 through 2011, call volume increased nearly 30 percent and email volume doubled.

BVP officials did not provide an explanation for these spikes. 

However, none of the officials we met with from the 10 

jurisdictions was aware of this resource and they all indicated that they 

rely on the Help Desk when they have questions concerning the online 

system. BJA officials told us they wanted to make the manual easily 

accessible to jurisdictions by making it available through the program’s 

website, but acknowledged that including links to the manual in the grant 

solicitation and the online system could help further raise grantees’ 

awareness of this resource and the information it provides. BJA officials 

stated that they plan to include information on the manual in the fiscal 

year 2012 BVP announcement and application that they expect to release 

in April 2012, partly in response to our review. Further disseminating 

information about this resource would be consistent with standards for 

internal control and could help improve the efficiency of the program by 

providing jurisdictions with relevant information up front and potentially 

reducing the number of calls and emails to the Help Desk.

49The instructional manual provides definitions of the required elements that jurisdictions 

need to input into the online system and step-by-step instructions for how to review 

applications and payment requests from the law enforcement agencies in the jurisdiction’s 

purview. 
 

Page 24 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

BJA could improve consistency across its body armor grant programs by 

harmonizing JAG and BVP purchase and wear requirements. It also could 

strengthen its monitoring practices for grantees’ compliance with existing 

program requirements. Further, BJA could enhance its tracking of which 

grantees use JAG awards to purchase body armor to facilitate 

compliance with all existing and any new requirements it might add. 

Unlike the BVP program, the JAG program does not require that grantees 

using JAG funding for body armor purchases have mandatory wear 

policies in place or purchase armor that is NIJ compliant. BJA could 

enhance its grant management controls by harmonizing requirements 

across the BVP and JAG programs so that both are holding grantees 

accountable to the same standards designed to ensure officer safety. We 

have previously identified establishing mutually reinforcing strategies and 

compatible policies and procedures as key coordination practices.50

BJA could strengthen its monitoring practices to better ensure compliance 

with the prohibition on combining JAG and BVP program awards by 

documenting pertinent monitoring procedures. Currently, BJA grant 

managers perform desk reviews, in which officials review grant 

documentation off-site, to assess compliance with general programmatic 

requirements. During these desk reviews, BJA officials told us that JAG 

 BJA 

officials told us that the mandatory wear and NIJ compliance 

requirements were implemented for the BVP program because 

jurisdictions use BVP funding more often than JAG funding to purchase 

body armor. They told us in January 2012 that as a result of our audit 

work, they planned to begin a review to consider inclusion of these 

requirements in the JAG program. BJA officials did not provide an 

estimate for how long such a review would take and did not state whether 

such a requirement would be included. However, the officials 

acknowledged that they had not considered addressing the 

inconsistencies before. Establishing body armor requirements within JAG 

that are consistent with the BVP program could help BJA better promote 

officer safety. This could help reduce the risk that officers do not wear the 

body armor that was purchased with federal funds or that they are 

wearing body armor that does not meet NIJ standards, given that both our 

survey and BJA’s data show that JAG grantees are using funds to 

purchase body armor.

 

50GAO-06-15. 

BJA Could Improve 

Controls over the JAG 

Program Related to Body 

Armor

Harmonizing Program 

Requirements to Ensure 

Consistency 

Strengthening Monitoring and 

Guidance to Prevent Misuse of 

Funds
 

Page 25 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

grant managers use a checklist to guide their monitoring and 

acknowledged that this checklist did not contain specifics for monitoring 

instances where BVP and JAG funding were combined. Officials said that 

grant managers are trained to check for inappropriate accounting 

practices no matter what program they are reviewing, but they did not 

provide evidence of this guidance in the training curriculum and 

acknowledged that a documented procedure to specifically check for the 

combining of BVP and JAG funding was needed. They also 

acknowledged that the cost of documenting this monitoring step would 

not be prohibitive. 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.

BJA also could strengthen its guidance to JAG grantees on the prohibition 

against combining BVP and JAG funds to purchase body armor. BJA 

officials acknowledged that, as with the BVP program, the current 

“Frequently Asked Questions” section of the JAG program’s website is 

the only place that grantees can learn of the program requirement that 

JAG funds not be used as matching funds for the BVP program. 

Currently, the prohibition is not contained in the JAG program grant 

solicitation or within the Grants Management System (GMS). BJA officials 

recognized the importance of grantees’ compliance with the prohibition on 

combining JAG and BVP funds and explained two additional controls they 

are planning to implement to enhance the information they provide to 

grantees on this topic, partly in response to our audit work. First, they 

have drafted a new section of the “Frequently Asked Questions” 

document that they plan to post on their website, pending final review, to 

better inform grantees of the prohibition on using JAG funds as matching 

funds for the BVP program. Second, they drafted a “special condition” 

that describes the prohibition on combining BVP and JAG funding that 

they plan to include in the JAG grant agreement, once this condition has 

been approved.51

 

51Special conditions set forth specific terms that grantees must meet, in addition to the 

general conditions associated with the grant, in order to receive funds. 

The special condition will require prospective grantees 

to certify that they will not use JAG funds to match their BVP funds or 

combine JAG and BVP funds to purchase the same vests. The officials 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

told us they expected to include these documents in the fiscal year 2012 

grant cycle, which they thought would be announced in March 2012. 

Improved dissemination of this requirement could help ensure conformity 

with internal control standards and leading grant management practices.

BJA has limited visibility over which JAG grantees are using their awards 

for body armor purchases. BJA could enhance its tracking to know which 

grantees used the JAG funds for this purpose and, as a result, be better 

informed and better positioned to target its monitoring for compliance with 

existing body armor requirements and any new ones the JAG program 

might add, consistent with standards for internal control. Currently, BJA 

uses the online Grants Management System (GMS) to track JAG 

spending across more than 150 specific categories—each associated 

with a “project identifier.” BJA officials explained that since fiscal year 

2011, they have required potential grantees to select up to five identifiers 

that reflect the significant ways in which they planned to use their JAG 

funds. If the applicants do not select any identifiers, or if JAG grant 

managers believe different identifiers are more appropriate, the grant 

managers can select as many identifiers as they deem appropriate and 

enter them directly into GMS.52

Officials told us that in response to our audit work, they would consider 

adding an identifier for “stab-resistant” vests in the future. However, BJA 

had not made a decision on this matter before we finalized our report. 

Although BJA officials acknowledge that project identifiers have 

limitations when used to track spending, they noted that enhancing GMS 

with mechanisms more precise than the identifiers would take a 

significant financial investment. Thus, they agree that maximizing the 

utility of the existing project identifier system—by adding another vest 

category—would be a low-cost way of better understanding JAG 

spending on body armor in the meantime.

Although “bulletproof vest” is among the 

project identifiers, no project identifier exists that could be used for stabresistant vests.

 

52Prior to this time, JAG program staff selected the identifiers for the grantees based upon 

the planned activities the grantee described in its application. 

Enhance Tracking of Funds to 

Ensure Compliance
 

Page 27 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

In addition to body armor research that NIJ funds through cooperative 

agreements with universities and research institutions, NIJ also has a 

collaborative body armor research effort with NIST. Under an interagency 

agreement, NIJ and NIST negotiate an annual fiscal year program plan 

and statement of work for NIST to provide technical and research 

services to support NIJ’s standards and compliance testing programs, 

including test laboratory accreditation. We have previously reported that 

establishing agency plans, such as the NIST program plan, is a key 

collaboration practice that can reinforce agency accountability and ensure 

that goals are consistent and mutually reinforcing.53

• research of the links between mechanical damage (e.g., stitching, 

bending, folding, or stretching) of common body armor materials and 

ballistic performance to determine how well the test protocol in the 

current ballistic-resistant body armor standard simulates real-life 

mechanical wear and

For example, 

selected fiscal year 2011 NIST projects to support NIJ body armor efforts 

included

• proficiency testing to understand how different body armor test 

laboratories compare with each other and support enhancements to 

the laboratory accreditation program.

NIJ has also designed mechanisms to leverage and share information on 

body armor with DOD and federal, state, and local law enforcement 

practitioners. For example, NIJ participates in DOD’s interagency 

Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s TSWG, which conducts 

research and development to identify and address the needs of federal, 

state, and local organizations that have responsibilities to prevent and 

respond to terrorism. TSWG has a personnel protection subgroup that 

focuses on developing techniques that improve the performance of body 

armor by reducing weight and optimizing material performance, among 

other things. NIJ participates in this subgroup joining NIST, the U.S. 

Secret Service, and the Department of Energy, among others. Currently, 

 

53GAO-06-15. 

NIJ Has Designed 

Mechanisms to Coordinate 

and Control Its Body 

Armor Efforts

NIJ’s Coordination of Body 

Armor Research and Standards 

Development 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

TSWG is leveraging resources and expertise from across participating 

agencies to conduct research on body armor technology to reduce blunt 

trauma and optimize the design of multithreat body armor worn beneath 

an officer’s uniform, as well as similarly worn lightweight armor, among 

other things.

In addition, NIJ has established the Law Enforcement and Corrections 

Technology Advisory Council and the Body Armor Technology Working 

Group, which consist of federal, state, and local law enforcement 

practitioners, to identify the body armor needs of and solicit opinions from 

the law enforcement community. NIJ and NIST take the practitioners’ 

input into account when developing the annual body armor research 

program plan. For example, the fiscal year 2010 program plan called for 

NIST to convene a workshop to evaluate the test methods for hard body 

armor in response to concerns raised by the Body Armor Technology 

Working Group. Finally, NIJ holds public conferences and workshops 

where the results of body armor research conducted by NIJ, DOD, NIST, 

and others are presented. These coordination mechanisms help NIJ 

leverage resources to identify and address body armor needs, consistent 

with key practices to help enhance and sustain collaboration among 

federal agencies.54

Another way that NIJ coordinates with stakeholders in the body armor 

arena is through its new process to update its standards, which we 

described in an earlier section of this report. All six of the body armor 

manufacturers and both of the ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant 

materials manufacturers we met with expressed concerns that the new 

standards revision process would not afford them sufficient opportunities 

to provide input. However, according to NIJ officials, any interested party, 

including manufacturers, may participate in the process to develop the 

standards by providing input at public workshops or providing comments 

on the draft document. Given that this new standards revision process 

was still under way during the production of our report, it was too soon to 

tell how effective the process will be in leveraging stakeholders’ 

knowledge and meeting globally accepted principles for stakeholder 

 

54GAO-06-15. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

involvement in standards development, such as openness, due process, 

and transparency.55

NIJ requires that body armor models being tested for NIJ compliance be 

examined at a laboratory that NIJ has approved. To obtain such approval, 

a laboratory must

• be accredited by NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program as meeting general international standards for laboratory 

technical competence and quality management, as well as meeting 

specific technical requirements to perform the body armor tests 

contained in the NIJ standards;56

• be an independent, third-party laboratory and conduct all body armor 

compliance testing within the United States; and

• demonstrate its freedom from potential conflicts of interest and 

maintain an independent decisional relationship from its clients, 

affiliates, contractors, and other organizations.

In addition to undergoing laboratory ballistic or stab-resistance testing, the 

body armor models must meet workmanship and labeling requirements.57

 

55For a discussion of globally accepted principles for developing standards, see American 

National Standards Institute, United States Standards Strategy. 

To ensure the integrity of the compliance testing results, laboratories 

send the test results directly to NLECTC, whose staff review the test 

results for compliance. NIJ then reviews the compliance test data and 

NLECTC’s recommendation and makes the final compliance decision. 

Figure 5 illustrates this process.

56As set forth in 15 C.F.R. pt. 285, the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (NVLAP) accredits testing and calibration laboratories that are found competent 

to perform specific tests or calibrations or types of tests or calibrations. The procedures, 

requirements, and guidance for NVLAP accreditation of body armor testing and calibration 

laboratories are set forth in NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General 

Requirements, and in NIST Handbook 150-24, NVLAP Personal Body Armor. 

57The laboratories inspect the body armor samples and ensure that they are identical and 

free of inferior workmanship, such as wrinkles, blisters, fabric tears, or fraying. The 

laboratories also inspect the body armor labels to ensure that they contain all required 

information specified in the standard, such as the name of the manufacturer, the rated 

level of protection, the date of manufacture, and identification of the proper orientation of 

the armor relative to the wearer. 

NIJ Controls Designed to 

Manage Body Armor 

Compliance Testing
 

Page 30 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Figure 5: NIJ Compliance Testing Process

To further enhance the compliance testing program and ensure that the 

body armor used by law enforcement and corrections officers is safe and 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

reliable, NIJ has implemented a follow-up inspection and testing 

requirement. Under this requirement, each body armor manufacturer with 

an NIJ-compliant ballistic-resistant body armor model is subject to six 

follow-up inspections and testing over a 60-month period, consisting of

• inspections of recently manufactured body armor samples to 

determine if the body armor in production continues to be constructed 

in the same way as the samples that were submitted for compliance 

testing and

• ballistic testing to ensure that unnoticed or unintentional variations 

have not occurred during the manufacturing process that could affect 

the performance of the armor.58

Currently, only NIJ-compliant ballistic-resistant body armor is subject to 

follow-up inspection and testing, but NIJ plans to implement a follow-up 

inspection and testing requirement for NIJ-compliant stab-resistant body 

armor following the issuance of the new stab-resistant body armor 

standard in December of 2012.

NIJ is taking steps to increase the uniformity of compliance testing 

procedures to address factors that may affect the outcome of ballistic or 

stab compliance testing. Officials we met with from all six of the body 

armor manufacturers expressed concerns that the results of the 

compliance tests may be affected by factors not controlled for in the 

standards’ testing protocols. For example, three manufacturers said that 

they believe that variations in the clay that body armor is mounted to 

during ballistic testing could affect test results. NIJ has provided funding 

to NIST to conduct research to develop guidelines to standardize the 

process for building the clay-filled backing material fixtures used in 

ballistic testing to improve the repeatability of tests. NIJ expects to 

incorporate the results of this research in the update of the ballisticresistant body armor standard. In addition, five of the six manufacturers 

raised concerns about the treatment of female body armor, and cited the 

lack of a clear definition that describes what constitutes female body 

armor and the lack of specific detailed protocols for testing female body 

armor. NIJ has recognized this as a challenge for the compliance testing 

program and has provided funding to NIST to conduct research to 

 

58The ballistic testing conducted in the follow-up inspection and testing reflects only a 

portion of the ballistic testing that is conducted during the initial compliance testing, and it 

is therefore not a conclusive indication that the armor in production would satisfy the full 

requirements of the NIJ standard. 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

develop standard definitions of body armor types and standardized test 

methods for assessing the performance of contoured body armor 

designs. NIJ expects to incorporate the results of this research in the 

update of both the stab- and ballistic-resistant body armor standards. 

Additionally, NIST officials told us that they were working with NIJ to 

develop proficiency testing protocols to compare testing results across 

NIJ-approved laboratories as part of NIST’s effort to meet international 

standards for this type of compliance testing within the next 3 years.59

Body armor’s ability to protect an officer during a critical incident depends 

upon 1) whether the officer is wearing body armor and 2) the level of 

performance and the effectiveness of the armor he or she is wearing. A 

number of factors can affect the use and effectiveness of body armor. For 

example, agency policies as well as the comfort, fit, and coverage of the 

body armor can affect use. Body armor fit and coverage can also affect 

the effectiveness of the armor, along with factors including degradation 

because of wear and tear, care and maintenance, and exposure to 

environmental conditions. DOJ has taken steps to address these factors 

and has efforts under way to further advance the use and effectiveness of 

body armor. In particular, NIJ expects to complete an evaluation within 

the next 3 years on the impact of its body armor efforts on law 

enforcement practices and policies and on body armor design and quality.

Agency policies. Agency policies to purchase and mandate the wearing 

of body armor can promote body armor use. An NIJ-funded 2011 survey 

conducted by the Police Research Executive Forum found that agency 

policy was the second most cited reason, behind safety concerns, why 

officers wore body armor.60

 

59See ISO/IEC Guide 65: 1996, General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product 

Certification Systems. 

Further, DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics 

reports that in 2007—the most recently available data—an estimated 80 

percent of local police officers were employed by a department with some 

type of body armor wear requirement, compared to 74 percent in 2003, 

60Heath Grant, Bruce Kubu, Bruce Taylor, Jack Roberts, Megan Collins, and Daniel J. 

Woods, Standing Up Under Fire- Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance in Real World 

Conditions: Findings from a National Survey, (forthcoming). 

DOJ Has Taken Steps 

to Address Factors 

That Affect the Use 

and Effectiveness of 

Body Armor
 

Page 33 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

and 30 percent in 1990.61

• BVP funding for body armor has been instrumental in helping 

jurisdictions provide body armor for their officers’ use, according to all 

10 of the jurisdictions in our sample.

Several DOJ activities have addressed agency 

policy. For example:

• BJA provided funding to support the development of IACP’s model 

body armor wear policy. Once BJA required BVP applicants to have a 

written mandatory wear policy in place to receive funding, it made the 

IACP model policy available to jurisdictions upon request to assist 

them in fulfilling this requirement.

• NIJ has produced an informational video on body armor that highlights 

the benefits of the BVP program. See video 

(www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588456) providing 

information on the BVP program.

Comfort, fit, and coverage. Comfort, fit, and coverage affect both the 

use and effectiveness of body armor. For example, body armor can 

create discomfort for an officer through reduced mobility, increased 

weight, heat buildup under the armor, and chafing—thereby causing him 

or her to discontinue its use. Officials from one law enforcement 

association noted that complaints about body armor heat buildup are not 

restricted to officers in hot climates, such as Arizona, and that officers in 

temperate climates, such as Washington State also report experiencing 

discomfort from heat. In addition, if the body armor is poorly fitting, it can 

create both discomfort and affect total coverage area. Body armor that 

extends too low in the front can cause discomfort by hitting the officer’s 

gun belt which can cause the vest to ride up toward the officer’s throat or 

pinch the skin of the abdomen between the gun belt and the armor. Body 

armor that is not wide enough can leave portions of the officer’s sides 

unprotected. One manufacturer explained that if body armor does not fit 

properly, it can develop set wrinkles that become weak spots in the armor 

and reduce its protection.

Designing comfortable, well-fitting body armor for female officers is 

particularly a challenge, according to the six body armor manufacturers in 

 

61The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a component of OJP with a mission to collect, 

analyze, publish and disseminate information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of 

crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, Local Police Departments, 2007, NCJ 231174 (Washington, D.C.: December 

2010). 
 

Page 34 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

our sample. One manufacturer explained that constructing formfitting bust 

cups requires additional stitching that can weaken the ballistic materials, 

and as a result, more layers of ballistic materials may be needed to 

compensate, making the vests thicker and less comfortable. Many 

manufacturers, including all six in our sample, will custom fit body armor 

to the specific body contours of individual officers.

DOJ’s activities to address comfort, fit, and coverage include NIJ taking 

the following actions:

• Issuing guidance that advises agencies to take comfort into account 

when selecting body armor and provides information on design 

elements that can affect comfort. NIJ’s body armor guidance also 

provides information on elements of proper fit and advises agencies to 

inspect body armor routinely to ensure proper fit. In addition, the NIJ 

guidance advises agencies to select body armor that provides full 

front, side and back protection and includes information to help 

agencies select body armor that offers an appropriate balance of 

protection and comfort. This guidance is available on NIJ’s website 

and the website NLECTC operates.

• Funding a study on the effect of body armor use on core body 

temperature to gain a better understanding of comfort issues. NIJ also 

plans to present the issue of including ergonomic or “wearability” test 

protocols to the STC as it consider revisions of the ballistic-resistant 

body armor standard.

• Providing funding to NIST to develop standard definitions of body 

armor types and standardized test methods for assessing the 

performance of contoured body armor designs for females. In 

addition, NIJ plans to bring the issue of female body armor testing 

methods to the STC developing the ballistic-resistant body armor 

standards for its consideration.

• Producing a video on body armor that provides information on body 

armor fit and coverage. See video

(www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588457). 

Wear and tear. Age alone does not degrade the ballistic-resistant 

properties of body armor, but wear and tear from normal use can 

contribute to the deterioration of body armor’s performance over time. 

There is little conclusive data on the extent to which normal wear and tear 

affects the useful lifespan of body armor. According to NIJ, many 

manufacturers offer 5-year warranties on their body armor, including the 

six we met with, but this is not necessarily a reflection of the service life of 

the armor. DOJ does have several activities under way, however, that 

address wear and tear factors. In particular:
 

Page 35 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

• NIJ’s ballistic-resistant body armor test protocols examine body 

armor’s performance after undergoing mechanical wear in a tumbler 

for 10 days while being exposed to hot and humid conditions. 

Appendix IV depicts a tumbler used for conditioning ballistic-resistant 

body armor before testing.

• NIJ’s body armor guidance contains information on body armor life 

expectancy and replacement policies, and encourages agencies to

visually inspect armor for signs of excessive wear and tear at least 

once a year.

• NIJ and NIST are jointly researching

• the properties of used body armor and how ballistic materials 

change over time,

• the relationship between changes in the ballistic materials and 

ballistic performance that could inform test methods for used 

armor, 

• body armor designs that are less vulnerable to mechanical 

damage from wear and tear, and

• artificial aging methods that could be used to predict the service 

life of armor.

• NIJ has produced a video that provides information on inspecting 

body armor for signs of wear and tear. See video

(www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588458). 

Care and maintenance. Dry cleaning solvents, harsh detergents, bleach, 

and accumulated soap residue can damage body armor and curtail its 

effectiveness. Further, improper storage can lead to the development of 

set wrinkles, stretching, and exposure to environmental conditions that 

can degrade performance. For example, hanging body armor on a hanger 

may stretch out the elastic shoulder straps and reduce the ballisticresistant panels’ proper coverage across the torso. DOJ has taken 

several actions to address these care and maintenance factors. 

Specifically, NIJ

• requires that all NIJ-compliant body armor contain labels that include 

care instructions and NIJ’s body armor guidance also includes 

information on caring for body armor, and

• has produced an informational video on body armor that discusses 

body armor care. See video 

(www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588459). 
 

Page 36 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Exposure to environmental conditions. Exposure to environmental 

conditions of extreme temperature, moisture, humidity, and ultraviolet 

light can degrade ballistic-resistant materials.62

• NIJ has ballistic-resistant body armor test protocols that examine 

armors’ performance after being submerged in water and being 

environmentally conditioned for 10 days in a tumbler that subjects the 

armor to heat and humidity and mechanical wear. Appendix IV shows 

a tumbler for conditioning ballistic-resistant body armor before testing.

In particular, the amount 

of moisture associated with normal perspiration is not sufficient to affect 

ballistic performance and most commercially manufactured armor is 

treated with water-repellant materials or enclosed in water-resistant 

covers. NIJ has several activities that aim to address these environmental 

factors:

• NIJ plans to present the issue of including environmental testing 

protocols to the STC as it considers revisions to the stab-resistant 

body armor standard.

• NIJ and NIST are jointly researching the effect of heat, humidity, and 

moisture on the strength of newer body armor materials and exploring 

how to verify or improve the environmental conditioning protocol in the 

ballistic-resistant body armor standard.

Body armor has demonstrated its ability to better protect law enforcement 

officers and DOJ has a number of efforts under way to promote its use 

and improve its effectiveness. Further, in managing its funding programs, 

BJA has designed several financial controls and has plans to further 

enhance grantee monitoring. Given the importance of the body armor 

initiatives under way to the safety of law enforcement officers—and the 

importance of sound financial management to program operations—

opportunities exist for BJA to improve in several areas. In particular, 

deobligating undisbursed funds from BVP grant awards whose terms 

have ended and the grants have closed could help prevent improper 

accounting and enhance its management of program funds. Further, 

increasing grantees’ awareness of the documentation retention 

requirement could help ensure grantees’ accountability in the use of 

 

62NIJ’s body armor standards do not address exposure to ultraviolet light (UV); however, 

NIJ does not believe a UV test is needed since the ballistic materials are enclosed in a 

cover that provides protection against UV light. Further, NIJ officials noted that when in 

use, the covered ballistic materials are inserted into a carrier vest that offers further 

protection against UV exposure.

Conclusions
 

Page 37 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

federal funds. Additionally, harmonizing requirements across the BVP and 

JAG programs could improve consistency in the department’s efforts to 

ensure law enforcement officers’ protection. Finally by fully documenting 

its procedures for monitoring compliance with program requirements and 

improving its tracking of which JAG grantees are using funds for stabresistant body armor purchases, BJA could better target its compliance 

efforts.

To enhance management of body armor funding, improve grantee 

accountability in the use of federal funds, reduce the risk of grantee 

noncompliance with program requirements, and ensure consistency in the 

department’s efforts to promote law enforcement officer safety, we 

recommend that the BJA Director take the following five actions:

1. Deobligate undisbursed funds from grants in the BVP program that 

have closed. 

2. Expand information available to BVP grantees on the current program 

requirement for jurisdictions to retain documentation on all 

transactions for at least 3 years.

3. 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 are permitted to purchase only NIJcompliant body armor.

4. Document procedures for desk review checks on compliance with 

JAG program requirements.

5. Establish a project identifier within GMS to track stab-resistant body 

armor. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for comment. We received 

written comments on the draft report, which are reprinted in appendix V. 

DOJ agreed or agreed in part with all five recommendations in the report, 

and we believe that DOJ’s planned actions address the intent of each. 

Specifically: 

• DOJ agreed with the recommendation that the department 

deobligate undisbursed funds from BVP grants that have closed 

and said that in the absence of statutory restrictions stating 

otherwise, BJA intends to use the deobligated, undispersed BVP 

funds to supplement appropriations in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

• DOJ agreed with the recommendation that it expand the 

information available to BVP grantees on the program requirement 

that jurisdictions retain documentation for at least 3 years and said 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 38 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

it will add language in the fiscal year 2012 BVP program 

requirements to address this issue. 

• DOJ generally agreed with the recommendation that it 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 are permitted to purchase only NIJcompliant body armor. DOJ 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 standards, such as K-9 ballistic 

vests, and to accommodate other JAG program requirements.63

• DOJ agreed, in part, with the recommendation that it document 

procedures for its checks on compliance with JAG program 

requirements, acknowledging the importance of closely monitoring 

this requirement. However, it stated that it did not believe that 

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 

beyond desk reviews to ensure grantees’ compliance. 

• DOJ agreed with the recommendation that it establish a project 

identifier within the Grants Management System to track stabresistant body armor and stated that it will add a project identifier 

for stab-resistant vests during the fiscal year 2012 JAG program 

application process.

DOJ also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the 

report as appropriate.64

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

 

63K-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. 

64For example, DOJ suggested that we use “closed” rather than “expired” when 

discussing those grants with undisbursed balances that could be deobligated. We agreed,

and changed the language throughout the report, as well as within recommendation 1, 

accordingly. 
 

Page 39 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, 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 report. Key contributors to this report are listed in

appendix VI.

David C. Maurer

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
 

Page 40 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

List of Requesters

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse

Chairman

Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Lindsey Graham

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin

United States Senate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

This report answers the following questions: (1) What efforts does the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) have under way to support state and local 

law enforcement’s use of body armor? (2) To what extent has DOJ 

designed controls over these efforts and coordinated them with 

stakeholders within and outside of the department? (3) What factors 

affect body armor’s use and effectiveness and how has DOJ has 

addressed these factors?

To address all three questions we obtained and assessed body armorrelated documents from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), such as program requirements, 

procedures, processes, and budget information for fiscal years 1999 

through 2011, and interviewed BJA and NIJ officials. In addition, we 

attended NIJ workshops in 2011 on its body armor standards and 

observed body armor testing firsthand.

To identify DOJ’s body armor efforts to support state and local law 

enforcement, we examined program data on BJA’s Bulletproof Vest 

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

its Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program for fiscal years 

2006 through 2011. These are two grant programs supporting state and

local law enforcement’s purchases of body armor. To assess the reliability 

of the BVP data, we talked with BJA officials about data quality control 

procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also 

examined preliminary information from a GAO survey of the more than 

3,900 JAG grantees that had received awards from fiscal years 2005 

through 2010 to determine the extent to which they had procured ballistic 

and stab-resistant body armor in fiscal year 2010.1

To evaluate the extent to which DOJ designed controls over and 

coordinated its body armor efforts, we assessed DOJ’s body armor 

program policies, procedures, processes, and coordination efforts using 

standards for internal control in the federal government and leading 

The survey data 

included in this report reflect a 42 percent response rate and are not 

generalizable to all JAG grantees.

 

1

Survey of Indigent Defense Funding from Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, 

GAO (2012). The survey will be completed in February 2012 and the results will be 

published in a forthcoming GAO report on indigent defense.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

practices for grant management and stakeholder coordination.2

Additionally, we obtained perspectives from the state and local law 

enforcement community on DOJ’s body armor efforts. Specifically, we 

interviewed officials from the following three law enforcement 

associations: the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 

Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.

We also 

discussed body armor efforts and coordination issues with federal officials 

inside and outside of DOJ. In particular, we interviewed officials from 

DOJ’s law enforcement components, including the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Bureau of Prisons; the Drug 

Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the 

U.S. Marshals Service. Furthermore, we interviewed officials from the 

Department of Defense’s Technical Support Working Group subgroup for 

personnel protection and the Department of Commerce’s National 

Institute of Standards and Technology who are involved in body armor 

research, standards, and testing to discuss their efforts and the extent to 

which they coordinate with DOJ.

3

 

2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

We 

selected this nonprobability sample of associations based upon the size 

of the organizations and the types of law enforcement officers 

represented. We also selected a nonprobability sample of 10 state and 

local jurisdictions that received BVP awards in fiscal year 2010 and 

interviewed officials representing each jurisdiction. We selected these 10 

based upon the type of jurisdiction (e.g., state, county, or city); population; 

and proximity to a GAO office for on-site visits. The jurisdictions we 

selected were Bristol, Virginia; the state of California; Dorchester County, 

Maryland; Gaithersburg, Maryland; Hanover County, Virginia; Los 

Angeles, California; the state of Maryland; Tulare County, California; the 

state of Virginia; and Washington, D.C. In particular, with officials from 

state and local jurisdictions, we discussed body armor funding, policy, 

selection, procurement, and use. When possible, we discussed body 

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); American National Standards 

Institute, United States Standards Strategy (New York: August 2000). 

3

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.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

armor use with male and female law enforcement officers who wear body 

armor and visited their offices to see the body armor that had been 

purchased using federal funds.4

We obtained perspectives on NIJ’s coordination efforts and body armor 

standards and compliance testing programs from interviews with 

nonprobability samples of six body armor manufacturers, two NIJapproved body armor testing laboratories, and two body armor materials 

manufacturers. We selected our sample of six body armor manufacturers, 

based upon the size of the company and the types of armor produced. 

The six manufacturers were Armor Express, Force One, Paraclete, Point 

Blank, Safariland, and US Armor.

Although the information from these 

nonprobability samples is not generalizable, it provides valuable insight 

into body armor issues.

5

For our analysis of the factors affecting body armor’s use and 

effectiveness, we reviewed body armor literature and discussed these 

factors with the officials we interviewed for the second question, 

described above. We also reviewed BJA and NIJ programmatic 

information, such as program requirements and research plans, to 

determine the extent to which DOJ had taken actions to address these 

factors. The documents reviewed cover the period from 1974 through 

2012, which generally corresponds to the time period of DOJ’s body 

armor efforts.

We selected the following two NIJapproved laboratories to visit based upon their proximity to our office: 

Chesapeake Testing and H.P. White Laboratory. We also met with 

officials from DuPont and Honeywell, two body armor materials 

manufacturers, based upon their officials’ availability to meet at a location 

near GAO. Although the information from these nonprobability samples is 

not generalizable, it provides valuable insight into body armor issues.

 

4

Owing to scheduling issues and time constraints we did not interview law enforcement 

officers from the jurisdictions of Tulare County, California, or the state of Virginia, and 

were unable to interview female officers from the jurisdictions of Bristol, Virginia; 

Dorchester County, Maryland, and the State of California or male officers from the 

jurisdiction of Hanover County, Virginia.

5

During the course of our review, the Point Blank and Paraclete body armor brands were 

acquired by another body armor manufacturer. Our selection of these manufacturers and 

the information we obtained from them preceded the acquisitions.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 through February 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Types of Law Enforcement Body 

Armor by Level of Ballistic Performance 

Page 45 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Types by 

Performance 

level

Ammunition used in 

compliance testing Degree of flexibility

How body armor 

is worn

IIA Handgun bullets:

• 9 mm and

• .40 Smith and 

Wesson

Soft Either under or 

above an officer’s 

uniform

II Handgun bullets:

• 9 mm and

• .357 Magnum

Soft Either under or 

above an officer’s 

uniform

IIIA Handgun bullets:

• .357 SIG and

• .44 Magnum

Soft Either under or 

above an officer’s 

uniform

III Rifle bullets:

• 7.62 mm

Semi-rigid or rigid Above an officer’s 

uniform

IV Rifle bullets:

• .30 caliber armorpiercing bullets

Semi-rigid or rigid Above an officer’s 

uniform

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information.

Appendix II: Types of Law Enforcement Body 

Armor by Level of Ballistic Performance 
Appendix III: Performance Levels of Law 

Enforcement Stab-Resistant Body Armor

Page 46 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

The stab-resistant body armor standard defines three levels of 

performance for stab-resistant body armor. For each of the three 

protection levels, the test protocol requires that the knife blade or spike 

impact the armor test sample at two energy levels. NIJ established a 

maximum allowable penetration limit of 7 millimeters for the first energy 

level, based upon research indicating that internal injuries to organs 

would be extremely unlikely at this depth. The second energy level is an 

“overtest” to ensure that an adequate margin of safety exists. NIJ defined 

a maximum allowable penetration limit of 20 millimeters for this second 

energy level. Table 2 illustrates the performance standards at each level.

Table 2: Stab-Resistant Body Armor Performance Levels

Performance 

level

Energy level of stab strike (in 

joulesa Energy level of stab strike (in 

joules) at which a penetration 

of 20mm is allowed 

) at which a penetration 

of 7mm is allowed 

1 24 36

2 33 50

3 43 65

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information.

a

A joule is a unit of energy equal to the work done by a force of 1 newton acting through a distance of 

1 meter. A newton is a unit of force that produces an acceleration of 1 meter per second per second 

on a mass of 1 kilogram. 

Appendix III: Performance Levels of Law 

Enforcement Stab-Resistant Body Armor
Appendix IV: Tumbler Used to Condition 

Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor before Testing

Page 47 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Appendix IV: Tumbler Used to Condition 

Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor before Testing
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 48 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 49 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 50 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 51 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 52 GAO-12-353 Law Enforcement Body Armor

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director, 

and Juan Tapia-Videla, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. 

Heather May and Ana Ivelisse Aviles made significant contributions to the 

work. Stanley Kostyla assisted with design and methodology. Willie 

Commons III provided legal support. Katherine Davis provided assistance 

in report preparation and Lydia Araya made contributions to the figures 

and videos presented in the report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(440957)
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.