Law Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant Management Controls and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program Requirements
Published: 2012-02-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. Preliminary data  collected by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund show  that in 2011, 68 officers were killed by firearms. Body armor can help  protect officers from firearm assaults. 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. 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  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) that conduct related  body armor research; and private entities, such as those that manufacture  and assist in testing body armor.
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?
To address all three questions we obtained and assessed body armor- related 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  2010.response rate and are not generalizable to all JAG grantees.
The survey data included in this report reflect a 42 percent  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. 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. 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.
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).
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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.Figure 1 depicts examples of ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body  armor.
Stab-resistant body armor protects against knives or spikes.
section_title: DOJ Provides Funding, Sponsors Research, Sets Standards, and Conducts Compliance Testing to Support Law Enforcement’s Use of Body Armor
paragraphs: A fuller discussion of the NIJ standards appears in a later section of this report.
subsections: section_title: BJA’s Two Funding Initiatives Help Jurisdictions Procure Body Armor
subsections: section_title: The BVP Program
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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. Finally, the  BVP program requires that when procuring body armor with BVP awards  recipients do not combine BVP and JAG funding. Jurisdictions apply for  BVP awards and reimbursable payments through the online BVP system.
From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the JAG program awarded about  $4 billion, including about $2 billion in funding from the American  Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, to help state and local  jurisdictions fund a wide variety of criminal justice activities, including  corrections, prosecution and courts, and law enforcement, among  others.
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. 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.
section_title: NIJ’s Body Armor Efforts Focus on Research, Setting Standards, and Testing for Compliance
subsections: section_title: Research
paragraphs: 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 has been setting voluntary body armor performance standards since  1972. 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.
The current NIJ standard for ballistic-resistant body armor establishes  minimum performance requirements and test methods intended to protect  against gunfire. ballistic performance, as shown in appendix II. 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.
NIJ, Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.06 (Washington, D.C.: July  2008).
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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: DOJ Has Controls and Coordination Mechanisms for Its Body Armor Efforts but Could Take Actions to Further Reduce Management Risks
subsections: section_title: BVP Has Designed Several Controls to Manage Its Program
paragraphs: 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 NIJ- compliant 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  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.
The 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). 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.
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. 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.
section_title: BJA Could Enhance Controls over the BVP Program to Better Manage Risk
paragraphs: 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.
In most years, disbursements generally track with obligations; however,  they show greater differences in some years.
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:  their grant term has not yet ended or they have been awarded an  extension,  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 budget and (2) the balance helped fund additional BVP  program awards.
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.
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.
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  previously reported that grant closeout is an important final point of  accountability for grantees, ensuring that they have met all program  requirements. 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.  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.
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  easily notice them and be aware. 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.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.
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  help ensure that BVP recipients comply with the documentation and  matching fund requirements.
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. 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.
section_title: BJA Could Improve Controls over the JAG Program Related to Body Armor
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  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. 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  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. Although “bulletproof vest” is among the  project identifiers, no project identifier exists that could be used for stab- resistant vests.
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.
section_title: NIJ Has Designed Mechanisms to Coordinate and Control Its Body Armor Efforts
subsections: section_title: NIJ’s Coordination of Body Armor Research and Standards Development
paragraphs: 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. For example,  selected fiscal year 2011 NIST projects to support NIJ body armor efforts  included  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 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,  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.
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  involvement in standards development, such as openness, due process,  and transparency.
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; 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.
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.
To further enhance the compliance testing program and ensure that the  body armor used by law enforcement and corrections officers is safe and  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.
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 ballistic- resistant 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  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.
section_title: DOJ Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Affect the Use and Effectiveness of Body Armor
paragraphs: 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.
Several DOJ activities have addressed agency
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.
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  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:
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 ballistic- resistant 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).
Exposure to environmental conditions. Exposure to environmental  conditions of extreme temperature, moisture, humidity, and ultraviolet  light can degrade ballistic-resistant materials. 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 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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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 stab- resistant body armor purchases, BJA could better target its compliance  efforts.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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 NIJ- compliant 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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 NIJ- compliant 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.
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 stab- resistant 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 armor- related 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. The survey data  included in this report reflect a 42 percent response rate and are not  generalizable to all JAG grantees.
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  practices for grant management and stakeholder coordination.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.
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. 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. Although the information from these  nonprobability samples is not generalizable, it provides valuable insight  into body armor issues.
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 NIJ- approved 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.  We selected the following two NIJ- approved 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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Types of Law Enforcement Body Armor by Level of Ballistic Performance
section_title: Appendix III: Performance Levels of Law Enforcement Stab-Resistant Body Armor
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Tumbler Used to Condition Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor before Testing
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.