Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers:
In Brief
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
May 13, 2014January 13, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43544
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Summary
Firearms are one of the leading causes of deaths for law enforcement officers feloniously killed in
the line of duty. Since FY1999, Congress has provided funding to state and local law enforcement
agencies to help them purchase armor vests for their officers. The Matching Grant Program for
Law Enforcement Armor Vests (hereinafter, “BPV program”) provides grants to state, local, and
tribal governments to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers and court officers.
The BPV program was first authorized by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-181). It has been subsequently reauthorized four times. The most recent reauthorization
expired in FY2012. Since FY1999, appropriations for the program have generally been between
$25 million and $30 million, with the exception of FY2012 and FY2013, when appropriations
were less than $23 million.
Congress is considering legislation that would reauthorize the BPV program. S. 933, the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013, would, among other
things, reauthorize. However, over the past three fiscal years appropriations for the program at $15 million for FY2014 and FY2015 and
$30 million per fiscal year for FY2016-FY2018
program were less than $23 million.
Armor vests can only save lives when they are actually worn. Data from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics indicate that an increasing percentage of police departments and sheriffs’ offices have
instituted “mandatory wear” policies. Several factors can affect whether a law enforcement
officer will wear an armor vest. Safety concerns are the most significant, followed by whether the
officer’s department has a mandatory wear policy. Comfort and fit are also a factor.
While armor vests can only save lives when they are worn, there is also a limit on how long they
can be worn and still be effective. No definitive data exist on how long an armor vest will last
before it needs to be replaced. Many manufacturers offer a five-year warranty on their vests, but
this is not necessarily indicative of their useful lifespan. The age of an armor vest alone does not
cause its ballistic resistance to deteriorate. Vest care and maintenance have been shown to have a
greater impact than age.
Similarly, no definitive data exist on the number of law enforcement officers whose lives have
been saved by vests paid for, in part, with funds from the BPV program. A frequently cited
statistic is that armor vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers over
the past 30 years, but it is not known how many of those vests were purchased in part with funds
from the BPV program.
While there is no such thing as a totally bulletproof vest, research has shown that armor vests do
save lives. The risk of dying from a gunshot wound to the torso is 3.4 times higher for law
enforcement officers who do not wear armor vests.
AsShould Congress considersconsider legislation to reauthorize the BPV program, policy makers may consider
consider several issues, including (1) what role the federal government should play, if any, in providing
providing armor vests for state and local law enforcement, (2) whether Congress should rescind deobligated
deobligated balances from the BPV program, (3) whether Congress should invest in developing new
new technology for armor vests, and (4) whether Congress should require law enforcement
agencies to
provide training on the care and maintenance of body armor as a condition of
receiving funding
under the BPV program.
Congressional Research Service
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Contents
Background................................................................................................................................ 1
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013 (S. 933) ................. 3
Authorizations and Appropriations............................................................................................ 43
The Use of Armor Vests by Law Enforcement .......................................................................... 54
The Life Cycle of Armor Vests .................................................................................................. 65
Effectiveness of Armor Vests..................................................................................................... 76
Selected Issues for Congress ................................................................................................... 10
Figures
Figure 1. Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed in the Line of Duty Who Were
Wearing Body Armor, 2003-20122004-2013................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2. Location of Fatal Wound for Law Enforcement Officers Killed with a Firearm
While Wearing Body Armor ......................................................................................................... 9
Tables
Table 1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the Matching Grant Program for Law
Enforcement Armor Vests, FY1999-FY2014FY2015 ............................................................................... 4
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
F
irearms are one of the leading causes of deaths for law enforcement officers feloniously
killed in the line of duty. According to data published by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), approximately 9293% of the 535511 non-federal law enforcement officers
feloniously killed in the line of duty between 20032004 and 20122013 were killed by a firearm.1 Law
enforcement officers who are shot in the torso are more likely to die as a result of their injury than
if if
they are not wearing a vest.2
Since FY1999, Congress has provided funding to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies
to help them purchase armor vests for their officers through the Matching Grant Program for Law
Enforcement Armor Vests (also referred to as the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Initiative,
hereinafter “the BPV program”).
Congress is considering legislation that would reauthorize the program through FY2018. S. 933,
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013, would, among other
things, reauthorize the BPV program until FY2018. The bill was introduced on May 13, 2013,
and was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on August, 1, 2013.
This report provides an overview of the BPV program. It also provides a discussion of
•
data on law enforcement agencies that require their officers to wear armor vests
while on duty,
•
research on why officers may choose to wear armor vests,
•
research on the life cycle for armor vests,
•
data on the use of body armor by law enforcement officers who were killed with
a firearm, and
•
research on the effectiveness of armor vests.
The report concludes with a survey of congressional issues policy makers might consider when
debatingshould
they take up legislation to reauthorize the BPV program.
Background
The BPV program was first authorized by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-181). The BPV program provides grants to state, local, and tribal governments to help
purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers and court officers. Grants under the
program cannot pay for more than 50% of the cost of purchasing a new armor vest.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), starting with FY2011 grant awards, required all law
enforcement agencies applying for funding under the BPV program to have a “mandatory wear”
policy in effect. The BJA put this requirement into place as a way to reduce line of duty deaths
and to ensure that armor vests purchased with funds provided by the program are used.3
1
Armor vests purchased by law enforcement agencies with BPV program funds must comply with
standards published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).4 The NIJ has set voluntary body
1
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2012,
Table 27, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2012/tables/table_27_leos_fk_type_of_weapon_2003-2012.xls2013,
Table 27.
2
Tom LaTourrette, “The Life-Saving Effectiveness of Body Armor for Police Officers,” Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, vol. 7 (2010), pp. 557-562.
3
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Updated Frequently Asked
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Armor vests purchased by law enforcement agencies with BPV program funds must comply with
standards published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).4 The NIJ has set voluntary body
Questions (FAQs) for the BVP Program Mandatory Wear Requirement, April 1, 2014, http://ojp.gov/bvpbasi/docs/
FAQsBVPMandatoryWearPolicy.pdf.
4
Under the authorizing legislation for the BPV program, “armor vest” is defined as “body armor, no less than Type I,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
armor standards since 1972.5 The NIJ’s performance standards classify body armor by levels of
ballistic performance.6 At any performance level, NIJ’s standards require that the bullet does not
perforate the body armor and that it protects against blunt trauma. The NIJ also administers a
program to test commercially available body armor for compliance with the NIJ’s performance
standards to make sure the armor works as expected.7 In order for a piece of body armor to be
certified as compliant by the NIJ, the manufacturer must register with the NIJ’s compliance
testing program, submit an armor model sample to a NIJ-approved laboratory for testing, agree to
a period of follow-up inspection and testing,8 and declare a period of ballistics warranty.
Current law specifies the minimum and maximum amounts law enforcement agencies can receive
under the program.9 No state, together with other grantees in the state (other than Indian tribes),
can receive less than 0.5% of the annual appropriation, unless all eligible applications have been
funded.10 No state, unit of local government, or Indian tribe can receive more than 5% of the
annual appropriation. No state, together with the other grantees in the state, may receive more
than 20% of the annual appropriation.
Funding under the program is required to be awarded to each qualifying unit of local government
with a population of less than 100,000. Remaining funds can be awarded to other jurisdictions.11
Current law also allows the BJA to give preferential consideration to law enforcement agencies
applying for grants under the following circumstances:12
(...continued)
Questions (FAQs) for the BVP Program Mandatory Wear Requirement, April 1, 2014, http://ojp.gov/bvpbasi/docs/
FAQsBVPMandatoryWearPolicy.pdf.
4
Under the authorizing legislation for the BPV program, “armor vest” is defined as “body armor, no less than Type I,•
the agency has the greatest need for armor vests based on the percentage of law
enforcement officers in the department who do not have access to a vest;
•
the agency has, or will institute, a mandatory wear policy that requires on-duty
law enforcement officers to wear armor vests whenever feasible;13 and
(...continued)
which has been tested through the voluntary compliance testing program operated by the National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Center of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and found to meet or exceed the
requirements of NIJ Standard 0101.03, or any subsequent revision of such standard; or ... body armor that has been
tested through the voluntary compliance testing program, and found to meet or exceed the requirements of NIJ
Standard 0115.00, or any revision of such standard.” 42 U.S.C. §3796ll-2(1).
5
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Body Armor Performance
Standards, http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/body-armor/Pages/standards.aspx.
6
Body armor is classified in one of five categories: Type IIA, Type II, Type IIIA, Type III, and Type IV. The higher
the classification type the greater the level of protection it provides. For example, an armor vest classified as Type III
would protect against a larger caliber bullet than an armor vest classified as Type II. See, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.06, NCJ 223054, July 2008,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf.
7
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Body Armor Compliance
Testing, http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/body-armor/Pages/testing.aspx.
8
The NIJ conducts follow-up inspection and testing of certified body armor. Manufacturers that produce NIJ-certified
body armor are subject to six follow-up inspections and testing over a five-year period. The follow-up inspection and
testing consists of inspections of recently manufactured body armor to determine whether it is constructed in the same
way as the original samples and follow-up ballistic testing.
9
42 U.S.C. §3796ll(d) and (e).
10
The minimum allocation for the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands is
0.25%.
11
42 U.S.C. §3796ll(g).
12
42 U.S.C. §3796ll(c).
Congressional Research Service
2
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
•
the agency has the greatest need for armor vests based on the percentage of law
enforcement officers in the department who do not have access to a vest;
•
the agency has, or will institute, a mandatory wear policy that requires on-duty
law enforcement officers to wear armor vests whenever feasible;13 and
•
the agency has a violent crime rate at or above the national average as determined
by the FBI; or
•
the agency has not received a grant under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) program.14
According to the BJA, since 1999, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Initiative has awarded a total
of $375 million in grants to purchase approximatelymore than 1.1 million armor vests (as of December
2013).15
State and local governments can also use funds they receive under the JAG program to purchase
armor vests for law enforcement officers.16 However, state and local governments cannot use JAG
funds to cover the match requirement under the BPV program.17
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of
2013 (S. 933)
Congress is considering legislation that would reauthorize the BPV program. S. 933, the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013, would reauthorize
appropriations for the program at $15 million for each of FY2014 and FY2015 and $30 million
each fiscal year for FY2016-FY2018.18 In addition, the bill would rescind any previously
appropriated funds for the program that are not expended by the end of FY2015.19 The bill would
13
As noted above, the BJA made this requirement mandatory for all grantees who apply for funding after FY2011.
Authorizations and Appropriations
The BPV program was first authorized by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-181).18 The act initially authorized $25 million per fiscal year for the grant program for
FY1999 to FY2001. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-517)
authorized appropriations for the program of $50 million per fiscal year for FY2002-2004. This
authorization of appropriations was extended by the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of
2004 (P.L. 108-372), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-162), and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-421).
The authorization for the program expired at the end of FY2012.
As shown in Table 1, in the early years of the program Congress appropriated the full amount
authorized (Congress actually appropriated more than was authorized for FY2001). From FY2002
to FY2012, Congress appropriated approximately 50-60% of the amount authorized for the
program. Congress has continued to fund the program even though authorized appropriations
expired at the end of FY2012.
(...continued)
13
As noted above, the BJA made this requirement mandatory for all grantees who apply for funding after FY2011.
14
Current law makes reference to “the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program described under the heading
‘Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’ of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105–119).” However, 42
U.S.C. §3750(b) states that “[a]ny reference in a law, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States
to ... the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants program, shall be deemed to be a reference to [the JAG
program].”
15
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bulletproof Vest
Partnership/Body Armor Safety Initiative, http://ojp.gov/bvpbasi/home.html.
16
JAG provides funding to state, local, and tribal governments for state and local initiatives, technical assistance,
training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems in one or more
of seven program purpose areas.16 The program purpose areas are (1) law enforcement programs; (2) prosecution and
court programs; (3) prevention and education programs; (4) corrections and community corrections programs; (5) drug
treatment and enforcement programs; (6) planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs; and (7) crime
victim and witness programs (other than compensation). For more information on the JAG program see CRS Report
RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, by Nathan James.
17
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, Frequently Asked Questions, updated May 2014, p. 11, https://www.bja.gov/
Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf.
18
A related bill, H.R. 988, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2013, would extend the current authorization
of $50 million per fiscal year to FY2017.
19
The bill would define “previously appropriated funds” as (1) any funding appropriated for the program for FY1999FY2012, and (2) funds that were available for expenditure on the date of enactment of the act, but which have not been
(continued...)
14
Congressional Research Service
3
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
prohibit grantees under the program from using any other federal funding to meet the matching
requirement under the program. The bill would require grantees that use JAG funds to purchase
body armor to have a mandatory wear policy in place, only purchase armor vests that meet the
requirements of the BPV program, and purchase armor vests that meet the performance standards
established by the BJA.20 The bill would also allow preference to be given to applicants under the
program that provide armor vests to law enforcement officers that are uniquely fitted for the
officer, including vests uniquely fitted to individual female law enforcement officers.
Authorizations and Appropriations
The BPV program was first authorized by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-181).21 The act initially authorized $25 million per fiscal year for the grant program for
FY1999 to FY2001. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-517)
authorized appropriations for the program of $50 million per fiscal year for FY2002-2004. This
authorization of appropriations was extended by the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of
2004 (P.L. 108-372), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-162), and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-421).
The authorization for the program expired at the end of FY2012.
As shown in Table 1, in the early years of the program Congress appropriated the full amount
authorized (Congress actually appropriated more than was authorized for FY2001). From FY2002
to FY2012, Congress appropriated approximately 50-60% of the amount authorized for the
program. Congress has continued to fund the program even though authorized appropriations
expired at the end of FY2012. However, appropriations for the BPV program over the past two
fiscal years have been lower than in previous years.
Currently codified at 42 U.S.C. §3796ll et seq.
Congressional Research Service
3
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Table 1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the Matching Grant Program for
Law Enforcement Armor Vests, FY1999-FY2014FY2015
Authorizations and appropriations in thousands of dollars
Fiscal Year
Authorization
Appropriation
1999
$25,000
$25,000
2000
25,000
25,000
2001
25,000
25,444
2002
50,000
25,444
(...continued)
expended, including funds that were previously obligated but undispersed.
20
JAG grant recipients can use those funds to purchase armor vests for law enforcement, but there is no requirement in
law for JAG funds to be used to purchase armor vests that are compliant with the conditions of the BPV program or for
law enforcement agencies to have a mandatory wear policy in place if they use JAG funds to purchase armor vests.
However, the BJA now requires JAG grant recipients to certify that they have a mandatory wear policy in place if they
use JAG funds to purchase armor vests and to purchase vests that meet the NIJ’s published standards for armor vests.
See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, Frequently Asked Questions, updated May 2014, p. 11, https://www.bja.gov/
Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf.
21
Currently codified at 42 U.S.C. §3796ll et seq.
Congressional Research Service
4
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Fiscal Year
Authorization
Appropriation
2003
50,000
25,279
2004
50,000
24,737
2005
50,000
24,666
2006
50,000
29,617
2007
50,000
29,617
2008
50,000
25,850
2009
50,000
25,000
2010
50,000
30,000
2011
50,000
24,850
2012
50,000
24,000
2013
—
19,993
2014
—
22,500
2015
—
22,250
Source: The FY1999-FY2010 appropriations were provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services Office. The FY2011 appropriation is based on a CRS analysis of P.L. 112-10. The
FY2012 appropriation was taken from H.Rept. 112-284. The FY2013 appropriation was provided by the
Department of Justice. The FY2014 appropriation was taken from the explanatory statement to accompany P.L.
113-76, printed in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H507-H532). The FY2015 appropriation was
taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-235, printed in the December 12, 2014,
Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363). Authorized appropriations were
taken from P.L. 105-181, P.L. 106-517,
P.L. 108-372, P.L. 109-162, and P.L. 110-421.
Notes: All appropriations reflect rescissions of current year budget authority. The FY2013 appropriation
reflects the amount sequestered pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).
The Use of Armor Vests by Law Enforcement
The ability of an armor vest to protect a law enforcement officer is based on whether the officer is
wearing the vest and the level of effectiveness and performance of the vest.2219 The Bureau of
Justice Statistics’ (BJS) survey of local police departments found that 65% of police departments
in 2007 (the most recent data available) required their officers to wear armor vests at all times and
another 10% require their officers to wear armor vests in some circumstances.23 In comparison, in
2003, 59% of police departments required their officers to wear armor vests all of the time and
another 12% required them to wear armor vests part of the time.24 In addition, 57% of sheriffs’
offices required their deputies to wear armor vests at all times and 15% required their deputies to
wear armor vest some of the time.25 In 2003, 55% of sheriffs’ offices required their deputies to
22
20 In comparison, in
19
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Law Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant
Management Controls and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program Requirements, GAO-12-353, February 2012,
p. 32, hereinafter “GAO body armor report.”
2320
Brian A. Reaves, Local Police Departments, 2007, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, NCJ 231174, Washington, December 2010, p. 19, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd07.pdf.
24
Matthew J. Hickman and Brain A. Reaves, Local Police Departments, 2003, Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 210118, Washington, May 2006, p. 25, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
pdf/lpd03.pdf.
25
Andrea M. Burch, Sheriffs’ Offices, 2007—Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 238558, Washington, December 2012, p. 15, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
so07st.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
2003, 59% of police departments required their officers to wear armor vests all of the time and
another 12% required them to wear armor vests part of the time.21 In addition, 57% of sheriffs’
offices required their deputies to wear armor vests at all times and 15% required their deputies to
wear armor vest some of the time.22 In 2003, 55% of sheriffs’ offices required their deputies to
wear armor vests all of the time and 15% required deputies to wear them in some circumstances.2623
These data show that most law enforcement agencies require officers to wear body armor, but
there is still a significant percentage of law enforcement agencies that do not, or that require law
enforcement officers to wear body armor only some of the time.
There are several factors that affect whether a law enforcement officer will wear an armor vest. A
survey of law enforcement officers conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
found that agency policy was the second most cited reason for why officers wore armor vests.2724
The first reason was safety concerns. The PERF survey also found that law enforcement officers
comply with their agency’s body armor policy either all (88%) or most (11%) of the time.2825
Comfort and fit is another factor that effects whether law enforcement officers wear armor vests.
Law enforcement officers might not wear their vests because they cause discomfort through
reduced mobility, increased weight, heat build-up under the vest, and chafing.2926 Ill-fitting body
armor can especially be a problem for female law enforcement officers.
The Life Cycle of Armor Vests
There are no definitive data on how long an armor vest will last before it needs to be replaced.3027
Many manufacturers offer a five-year warranty on their armor vests, but this is not indicative of
the useful lifespan of an armor vest.3128 Most armor vests are necessarily replaced several times
over a law enforcement officer’s career. There are several factors that can lead to the deterioration
of an armor vest’s effectiveness (1) wear and tear, (2) the use of dry cleaning solvents, harsh
detergents, bleach, and accumulated soap residue, and (3) improper storage and exposure to
environmental conditions (such as excessive moisture).32 Law enforcement agencies also
sometimes upgrade vests if they determine that the ammunition threat they face has increased and
now exceeds the capacity of the vests issued to their officers.33 Sometimes an armor vest might
have to be replaced if an officer’s weight has changed and the vest no longer fits properly.
The age of an armor vest alone does not cause its ballistic resistance to deteriorate.34 The level of
care and maintenance for the vest has been shown to have a greater impact than age.35 An unused
armor vest that is 10 years old may be perfectly acceptable for use. However, an armor vest that is
26
(...continued)
Justice Statistics, NCJ 231174, Washington, December 2010, p. 19, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd07.pdf.
21
Matthew J. Hickman and Brain A. Reaves, Local Police Departments, 2003, Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 210118, Washington, May 2006, p. 25, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
pdf/lpd03.pdf.
22
Andrea M. Burch, Sheriffs’ Offices, 2007—Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 238558, Washington, December 2012, p. 15, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
so07st.pdf.
23
Matthew J. Hickman and Brain A. Reaves, Sheriffs’ Offices, 2003, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 211361, Washington, May 2006, p. 25, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
pdf/so03.pdf.
2724
Heath Grant, Bruce Kubu, and Bruce Taylor, et al., Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance in Real World
Conditions: Findings from a National Survey, Executive Summary, Police Executive Research Forum, Washington,
November 1, 2012, p. vi, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240222.pdf, hereinafter “PERF, Body Armor Use,
Care, and Performance in Real World Conditions.”
2825
Ibid.
2926
GAO body armor report, p. 33.
3027
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Selection and Application Guide
to Personal Body Armor, NIJ Guide 100-01, NCJ 189633, November 2001, p. 60, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
189633.pdf, hereinafter, “NIJ, Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor.”
31
GAO body armor report, p. 34.
32
GAO body armor report, p. 34.
33
NIJ, Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor, p. 60.
34
Ibid., p. 61.
35
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
28
GAO body armor report, p. 34.
Congressional Research Service
5
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
environmental conditions (such as excessive moisture).29 Law enforcement agencies also
sometimes upgrade vests if they determine that the ammunition threat they face has increased and
now exceeds the capacity of the vests issued to their officers.30 Sometimes an armor vest might
have to be replaced if an officer’s weight has changed and the vest no longer fits properly.
The age of an armor vest alone does not cause its ballistic resistance to deteriorate.31 The level of
care and maintenance for the vest has been shown to have a greater impact than age.32 An unused
armor vest that is 10 years old may be perfectly acceptable for use. However, an armor vest that is
only two or three years old, but has been worn regularly and poorly maintained might need to be
replaced. Some law enforcement agencies have policies in place under which armor vests are
automatically replaced after five years, but the NIJ warns that a replacement policy should be
consistent with the way officers use their vests.3633
Data from a survey of law enforcement officers conducted by PERF suggests that law
enforcement officers may not be properly caring for and maintaining their body armor and that
law enforcement agencies may need to do more to ensure that their officers properly care for their
armor vests. Notable findings from the study include the following:
•
Nearly 60% of law enforcement officers surveyed by PERF reported that they
stored their body armor by hanging it on a clothes hanger, despite the fact that
many manufacturers and department policies recommend that body armor should
be stored flat to best sustain its performance in the long run.3734
•
A majority (65%) of surveyed law enforcement officers did not know that
moisture reduces the ballistic protection afforded by body armor.3835 Only 9% of
law enforcement officers reported that their agency conducts inspections for
proper maintenance of body armor.3936
•
Approximately 28% of law enforcement officers reported not receiving any
training about care and maintenance of their body armor.4037
•
A majority of officers (59%) reported that they learned about how to care and
maintain their vests from manufacturer-provided literature and manuals.
Effectiveness of Armor Vests
There are no definitive data on the number of law enforcement officers whose lives have been
saved by vests paid for, in part, with funds from the BPV program. A frequently cited statistic is
that armor vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers over the past
30 years,41
29
GAO body armor report, p. 34.
NIJ, Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor, p. 60.
31
Ibid., p. 61.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
PERF, Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance in Real World Conditions, p. 46.
35
Ibid., p. 59.
36
Ibid., p. 51.
37
Ibid., p. 58.
30
Congressional Research Service
6
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
30 years,38 but it is impossible to determine how many of those vests were purchased with funds
from the BPV program. The BJA reports that, based on data it collected in FY2012, armor vests
were directly attributable to saving the lives of at least 33 law enforcement and corrections
officers, an increase of 14% over FY2011.4239 At least 14 of those 33 vests had been purchased, in
part, with funds from the BPV program.
However, as the NIJ notes, there is no such thing as bulletproof armor. Ballistic-resistant body
armor provides protection against penetrating bullets and the blunt trauma associated with bullet
impacts, but it will not stop all bullets. Some armor vests only protect against handgun bullets,
while some others protect against rifle bullets. Armor vests help protect against death that could
36
Ibid.
PERF, Body Armor Use, Care, and Performance in Real World Conditions, p. 46.
38
Ibid., p. 59.
39
Ibid., p. 51.
40
Ibid., p. 58.
41
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Body Armor,
http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/body-armor/Pages/welcome.aspx.
42
BJA, Bulletproof Vest Partnership/Body Armor Safety Initiative.
37
Congressional Research Service
7
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
result from sustaining a gunshot to the torso, but they will not protect against gunshots to the
neck, head, or thigh. In some cases an officer might be killed even if he or she is wearing an
armor vest, because the officer was shot with ammunition larger than the type the vest was rated
to stop or because the officer was shot in the torso where there was a gap in the vest.
Data from the FBI indicate that 64% (34565% (330) of the 535511 non-federal law enforcement officers
feloniously killed in the line of duty between 20032004 and 20122013 were wearing body armor when they
were killed. Figure 1 shows how many law enforcement officers were wearing body armor at the
time of their deaths.
38
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Body Armor,
http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/body-armor/Pages/welcome.aspx.
39
BJA, Bulletproof Vest Partnership/Body Armor Safety Initiative.
Congressional Research Service
7
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Figure 1. Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed in the Line of Duty Who Were
Wearing Body Armor, 2003-20122004-2013
80
Number of Law Enforcement Officers
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Wearing body armor
Not wearing body armor
Source: CRS presentation of data from Law U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigaion, Law
Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 20122013, Table 37.
Congressional Research Service
8
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Figure 2 indicates that most law enforcement officers who were killed with a firearm while
wearing body armor were shot in the head or throat rather than the torso. Between 20032004 and 20122013,
approximately 31% of the officers killed with a firearm while wearing body armor were shot in
the torso.
Figure 2. Location of Fatal Wound for Law Enforcement Officers Killed with a
Firearm While Wearing Body Armor
50
Number of Law Enforcement Officers
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Head or throat
Torso
Other
Source: CRS presentation of data from Law U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigaion, Law
Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 20122013, Table 38.
Notes: The data provided by the FBI is more specific than what is presented in Figure 2. “Head or throat”
includes “front head,” “rear head,” “side head,” and “neck/throat.” “Torso” includes “front upper torso/chest,”
“rear upper torso/back,” “front lower torso/stomach,” and “rear lower torso/back.” “Other” includes “front
below waist,” “rear below waist,” and “arms/hands.”
Even though about one-third of the law enforcement officers who were killed with a firearm
while wearing an armor vest between 20032004 and 20122013 were shot in the torso, data from the FBI
indicate that in only one instance was a death the result of the vest failing (i.e., the vest did not
stop a bullet it was designed to stop).4340 About 2118% of law enforcement officers who died while
wearing body armor after being shot in the torso died because the officer was shot with
40
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2013,
Table 40.
Congressional Research Service
9
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
ammunition that was more powerful than the vest’s capability to stop it. In another 7377% of cases,
the law enforcement officer was killed because he or she was struck in a part of the torso that was
43
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2012,
Table 40.
Congressional Research Service
9
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
not protected by the vest (e.g., the bullet entered through the side panels of the vest, the armhole,
or the shoulder area).
While there are limits on how much protection armor vests can provide, the risk of dying from a
gunshot wound to the torso is 3.4 times higher for law enforcement officers who do not wear
armor vests.4441 It has been estimated that the marginal benefit that would result from universal use
of body armor by law enforcement officers is nearly double the cost, and universal use would
save at least an additional 8.5 lives per year.4542
Selected Issues for Congress
How much support, if any, should the federal government provide for something that is a
prerogative of state and local governments? This is a perpetual question relating to any federal
assistance for state and local law enforcement. It is an issue policy makers might consider when
debating S. 933, which would reauthorize funding for the BPV program through FY2018. On the
On the one hand, there is an argument to be made
that police officers are state and local employees who
are enforcing state and local laws, and
hence it is the responsibility of state and local governments
to provide the resources necessary,
including armor vests, for them to do their jobs safely and
effectively. A number of Department of
Justice (DOJ) grant programs provide “seed” money for
state and local governments to get a
program up and running, or to expand an existing program,
but the grant recipient will eventually
be responsible for taking on the cost and continuing the
program. This might not be the case for a
program that provides money to help law enforcement
agencies purchase body armor for officers.
As previously discussed, armor vests are not a onetimeone-time purchase; they need to be replaced in
order to ensure their effectiveness. This fact may raise
doubts about whether the federal
government will ever be able to stop providing funding for the
purchase of armor vests. On the
other hand, law enforcement officers face a higher risk of
suffering a fatality while at work than
the average American worker.4643 Some policy makers might
argue that Congress has an interest in
helping law enforcement agencies ensure the safety of their
employees to the extent practicable.
Even though Congress appropriates tens of millions of
dollars each fiscal year for the BPV
program, it is still a relatively small amount compared to
what Congress appropriates for some
other DOJ grant programs. Finally, as discussed previously,
a cost-benefit analysis has shown that
investment in armor vests provides a substantial “bang for
the buck.”
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the BPV program has millions of
dollars in previously appropriated funding that has not been deobligated. According to the GAO,
between FY1999 and November 2011, the BJA awarded $340 million in grants under the BPV
program, but only about $247 million has gone to grantees through reimbursements for purchased
armor vests.4744 Of the approximately $93 million in undisbursed funds, $14 million was actually
deobligated by the BJA, $27 million could be deobligated, and $52 million was from grants that,
4441
Tom LaTourrette, “The Life-Saving Effectiveness of Body Armor for Police Officers,” Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, vol. 7 (2010), pp. 557-562.
4542
The author assumed that armor vests would have to be purchased for 236,000 law enforcement officers at a cost of
$112 per officer-year (i.e., one year worked by one officer). The author assumed that the value of one statistical life
was $6 million and that 8.5 lives per year would be saved by universal used of body armor. Ibid.
4643
The fatality risk for a law enforcement officer in the United States is 15.6 per 100,000 workers, which is nearly four
times greater than the average American worker. Ibid., p. 557.
4744
GAO body armor report, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service
10
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
at the time, were still open.48 It appears that Congress is trying to address this issue in S. 933. The
bill would rescind any unobligated balances from the BPV program that are left at the end of
FY2015 and return the funds to the General Fund of the Treasury.45 If Congress wants to rescind
the balances remaining in the BPV
program, policy makers might consider whether it would be
equally effective to allow the BJA to
retain the funds.46 Since appropriations for the BPV program
are “no-year” funds, the deobligated
balances could be used by BJA to make future awards,
which might decrease the amount the DOJ
would request for the program in future fiscal years.
The GAO notes that beginning with FY2008,
the BJA started to automatically extend the twoyeartwo-year grant period for any grantee under the BPV
program with undisbursed funds. This means
that if a grantee with expiring funds applies for a
new grant under the BPV program, the BJA
automatically extends the term of the previous award
for another two years and subtracts the
amount of the undisbursed funds from the new award.4947
Another issue policy makers might consider while debating the reauthorization of the BPV
should they take up legislation to reauthorize the
BPV program is whether to invest additional funding in advancing body armor technology. An armor
armor vest is only effective when the law enforcement officer is wearing it. Some law enforcement
enforcement officers might stop wearing their armor vests if they find them to be uncomfortable or
or cumbersome. Armor vests that are designed to protect against larger-caliber rifle bullets can be
more uncomfortable because they are made with hard components, unlike vests that are designed
to stop smaller caliber bullets from handguns, which are made with soft components. Also, as
previously discussed, there have been instances where law enforcement officers have been killed
while wearing body armor because the officer was struck in the torso in an area not covered by
the vest or the bullet went through the vest’s side panels. Policy makers might consider whether
to provide additional funding to the NIJ to do more research into developing new technology in
ballistic material that could provide a higher level of protection while also being lighter and more
comfortable, or new designs in armor vest that provide more protective coverage. Congress could
also consider providing funding for the NIJ to do more research into armor vests that provide a
better fit for female officers.
Policy makers might also consider whether additional steps should be taken to help ensure that
law enforcement officers properly maintain their body armor. As previously discussed, some law
enforcement officers do not properly store their armor vests, and some officers are not aware that
moisture can reduce their vests’ effectiveness. In addition, most law enforcement agencies do not
regularly inspect officers’ vests for proper maintenance, and some agencies do not have training
for officers about how to care for and maintain their vests. Congress might consider whether
making formal care and maintenance training requirements should be a condition of receiving
funds under the BPV program, much like the mandatory wear policy the BJA put in place.
Congress could also consider allowing the BJA to give preference for awards to law enforcement
agencies that have procedures in place to train their officers on how to properly care for and
maintain body armor and provide a space for their officers to properly store their vests when they
are not wearing them.
48
4945
Ibid.
Ibid.Legislation in the 113th Congress (S. 933) would have rescinded previously appropriated funds for the program that
are not expended by the end of FY2015.
47
GAO body armor report, p. 19.
46
Congressional Research Service
11
Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief
Author Contact Information
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264
Congressional Research Service
12