This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-353 
entitled 'Law Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant 
Management Controls and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program 
Requirements' which was released on February 15, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2012: 

Law Enforcement Body Armor: 

DOJ Could Enhance Grant Management Controls and Better Ensure 
Consistency in Grant Program Requirements: 

GAO-12-353: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-353, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since 1987, body armor-—in the form of ballistic-resistant and stab-
resistant vests—-has reportedly saved the lives of over 3,000 law 
enforcement officers nationwide. Recognizing body armor’s value, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ)-—through its Bureau of Justice Assistance 
(BJA) and its National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-—has implemented 
initiatives to support state and local law enforcement agencies’ use 
of body armor. GAO was asked to examine (1) DOJ’s efforts to support 
the use of body armor, (2) the extent to which DOJ has designed 
controls to manage and coordinate these efforts, and (3) the factors 
affecting body armor’s use and effectiveness and steps DOJ has taken 
to address them. GAO reviewed information on DOJ’s efforts, and 
interviewed officials from BJA, NIJ, 6 manufacturers, 2 laboratories, 
3 law enforcement associations, 10 state and local jurisdictions, and 
12 stakeholders in and outside of government. GAO selected these 
organizations nonrandomly based in part on their size, and location. 
GAO also examined body armor literature on key factors affecting body 
armor’s use and effectiveness and reviewed DOJ’s efforts to address 
these factors. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has a number of initiatives to support 
body armor use by state and local law enforcement, including funding, 
research, standards development, and testing programs. Two Bureau of 
Justice Assistance (BJA) grant programs provide funding to state and 
local law enforcement to facilitate their body armor purchases. The 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program offers 2-year grants on a 
reimbursable basis. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
(JAG) program provides 4-year grant money up front that can be used to 
fund body armor procurement along with other criminal justice 
activities. Since the BVP program’s inception in 1999, it has 
reimbursed grantees about $247 million for their purchases of nearly 1 
million vests. The JAG program has provided nearly $4 billion from 
fiscal years 2006 through 2011, but BJA does not know how much of this 
amount grantees have spent on body armor because it is not required to 
track expenditures for specific purposes. BJA reports that from fiscal 
years 2006 through 2011, 357 grantees intended to use JAG funds for 
ballistic-resistant vest procurement, but it does not track how many 
grantees intended to purchase stab-resistant vests. The National 
Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsors body armor research, establishes 
body armor performance standards, and oversees body armor testing for 
compliance. 

DOJ designed several internal controls to manage and coordinate BJA’s 
and NIJ’s body armor activities, but could take steps to strengthen 
them, consistent with standards for internal control. For example, the 
BVP program has not deobligated about $27 million in undisbursed funds 
from grant awards whose terms have ended. To strengthen fund 
management, DOJ could deobligate these funds for grants that have 
closed and, for example, apply the amounts to new awards or reduce 
requests for future budgets. Also, unlike the BVP program, the JAG 
program does not require that the body armor purchased be NIJ 
compliant or that officers be mandated to wear the armor purchased. To 
promote officer safety and harmonize the BVP and JAG programs, DOJ 
could establish consistent body armor requirements. 

Factors affecting body armor use and effectiveness include law 
enforcement agencies’ policies mandating wear; the comfort, fit, and 
coverage of the vests; degradation caused by wear and tear; and 
exposure to environmental conditions. Among other efforts to address 
these factors, DOJ has revised its standards and compliance tests to 
incorporate the latest technology. 

Figure: Examples of Body Armor: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Source: NIJ. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that among other actions, DOJ deobligate undisbursed 
funds from grants in the BVP program that have closed, establish 
consistent requirements within its body armor grant programs, and 
track grantees’ intended stab-resistant vest purchases. DOJ generally 
agreed with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-12-353]. For 
more information, contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 
maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOJ Provides Funding, Sponsors Research, Sets Standards, and Conducts 
Compliance Testing to Support Law Enforcement's Use of Body Armor: 

DOJ Has Controls and Coordination Mechanisms for Its Body Armor 
Efforts but Could Take Actions to Further Reduce Management Risks: 

DOJ Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Affect the Use and 
Effectiveness of Body Armor: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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

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

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

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

Table 2: Stab-Resistant Body Armor Performance Levels: 

Figures: 

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

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

Figure 3: BVP Program Awards and Disbursements from Fiscal Years 1999 
through 2011: 

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

Figure 5: NIJ Compliance Testing Process: 

Abbreviations: 

BJA: Bureau of Justice Assistance: 

BVP: Bulletproof Vest Partnership: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

GMS: Grants Management System: 

IACP: International Association of Chiefs of Police: 

JAG: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant: 

OAAM: Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management: 

OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 

NIJ: National Institute of Justice: 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

NLECTC: National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: 

NVLAP: National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program: 

STC: Special Technical Committee: 

SAA: state administering agency: 

TSWG: Technical Support Working Group: 

UV: ultraviolet: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 15, 2012: 

Congressional Requesters: 

Firearms continue to be one of the most dangerous threats faced by 
federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, according to 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data. In 2010, the most recent 
year for which complete data are available, the FBI reported that 56 
law enforcement officers were killed nationwide in violent encounters 
and that all but one of these deaths was caused by a firearm.[Footnote 
1] Preliminary data collected by the National Law Enforcement Officers 
Memorial Fund show that in 2011, 68 officers were killed by firearms. 
[Footnote 2] Body armor can help protect officers from firearm 
assaults.[Footnote 3] A study conducted by a RAND Corporation 
researcher found that officers who do not routinely wear body armor 
are 3.4 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury from a torso shot 
than officers who do.[Footnote 4] 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)[Footnote 5] 
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.[Footnote 6] The survey data 
included in this report reflect a 42 percent response rate and are not 
generalizable to all JAG grantees. 

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.[Footnote 7] We also discussed body armor efforts and 
coordination issues with officials from DOJ's law enforcement 
components, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives; the Bureau of Prisons; the Drug Enforcement 
Administration; the FBI; and the U.S. Marshals Service. Additionally, 
we interviewed officials from 3 law enforcement associations, 6 body 
armor manufacturers, 2 body armor testing laboratories, and 10 
jurisdictions that receive DOJ body armor funding. In particular, with 
officials from state and local jurisdictions, we discussed body armor 
funding, policy, selection, procurement, and use. When possible, we 
discussed body armor use with male and female law enforcement officers 
who wear body armor. We selected these types of organizations because 
of their involvement in body armor manufacturing, testing, and use. We 
selected the nonprobability samples of these organizations based 
primarily on size and location.[Footnote 8] 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. 

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. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 9] This 
body armor includes soft body armor that protects against handgun 
bullets and less flexible tactical body armor composed of soft and 
hard components that protects against rifle bullets.[Footnote 10] Stab-
resistant body armor protects against knives or spikes. Figure 1 
depicts examples of ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Soft ballistic-resistant body armor; 
Tactical ballistic-resistant body armor; 
Stab-resistant body armor with spike and blade used during testing. 

Source: NIJ.  

[End of figure] 

DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has two units responsible for 
the department's body armor efforts--BJA and NIJ--whose initiatives 
will be discussed in greater detail later in this report. BJA, in 
turn, has two separate grant programs that support, either directly or 
indirectly, state and local law enforcement's body armor purchases: 
(1) the BVP program and (2) the JAG program. 

DOJ created the BVP program following enactment of the Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998.[Footnote 11] The legislation 
authorized BJA to provide grants on a competitive basis to state and 
local law enforcement agencies to assist in their purchasing of 
ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor that complies with 
NIJ body armor standards. Currently, funds available for the BVP 
program are awarded to each qualifying unit of local government with 
fewer than 100,000 residents and any remaining funds available are 
awarded to other qualifying applicants.[Footnote 12] Appropriations 
for BVP funding are provided under "no-year authority," but the BVP 
program currently gives state and local jurisdictions 2 years to use 
their awards.[Footnote 13] The program has generally funded, on a 
reimbursable basis, up to 50 percent of the cost of the body armor a 
jurisdiction procures with its available BVP funds.[Footnote 14] 

[Side bar: No-year authority is budget authority that remains 
available for obligation for an indefinite period of time. A no-year 
appropriation is usually identified by language such as "to remain 
available until expended." Source: GAO. End of side bar] 

DOJ established the JAG program following enactment of the Violence 
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, 
which merged the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
Assistance Program with the Local Government Law Enforcement Block 
Grants program.[Footnote 15] The JAG program is the leading source of 
federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. 
Appropriations for JAG funding also are provided under no-year 
authority and the JAG program gives state and local jurisdictions 4 
years to use their awards.[Footnote 16] JAG provides state, tribal, 
and local governments with funding to support a range of program 
areas, including law enforcement; prosecution and courts; prevention 
and education; corrections and community corrections; drug treatment 
and enforcement; planning, evaluation, and technology improvement; and 
crime victim and witness initiatives. In the law enforcement program 
area, among other things, grantees can use JAG funding to procure body 
armor. The program provides 60 percent of the JAG awards directly to 
the state agencies that administer JAG funds--known as state 
administering agencies (SAA)--and 40 percent of the awards directly to 
local units of government. Local recipients of JAG funding can receive 
money either as a direct payment from the JAG program, as a pass-
through from the SAA, or, in some cases, from both the program and the 
SAA.[Footnote 17] 

DOJ, through NIJ, establishes and updates voluntary minimum 
performance standards for ballistic-and stab-resistant body armor, 
conducts testing against these standards to ensure that body armor 
complies with them, and sponsors research that includes how well body 
armor protects officers in the line of duty and where improvements may 
be needed.[Footnote 18] NIJ works on these efforts with experts in 
academia and other federal agencies, such as the Department of 
Commerce and DOD. In particular, the Department of Commerce's National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has supported NIJ's body 
armor research, performance standards, and compliance testing efforts. 
DOD's Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), which leverages the 
knowledge and research capacity of body armor experts from DOD and 
other federal agencies, has also supported NIJ's body armor efforts. 

DOJ Provides Funding, Sponsors Research, Sets Standards, and Conducts 
Compliance Testing to Support Law Enforcement's Use of Body Armor: 

BJA'S Two Funding Initiatives Help Jurisdictions Procure Body Armor: 

The BVP Program: 

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.[Footnote 19] 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.[Footnote 20] In addition, the program requires that the 
jurisdictions use this funding to purchase only ballistic-resistant 
and stab-resistant body armor that complies with current NIJ 
standards. Jurisdictions can only use BVP funds to purchase one vest 
per officer over the course of their vest replacement cycles at a 
maximum cost of $2,250 per vest.[Footnote 21] Finally, the BVP program 
requires that when procuring body armor with BVP awards recipients do 
not combine BVP and JAG funding.[Footnote 22] Jurisdictions apply for 
BVP awards and reimbursable payments through the online BVP system. 

The JAG Program: 

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the JAG program awarded about $4 
billion,[Footnote 23] including about $2 billion in funding from the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[Footnote 24] to help 
state and local jurisdictions fund a wide variety of criminal justice 
activities, including corrections, prosecution and courts, and law 
enforcement, among others.[Footnote 25] 

Within the "law enforcement" area, the JAG program permits grantees to 
purchase equipment, such as ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant 
vests. However, BJA does not know how much grantees have spent on body 
armor because it is not required to track expenditures for specific 
purposes.[Footnote 26] According to preliminary information from our 
survey of more than 3,900 grantees that had received JAG awards from 
fiscal years 2005 through 2010, 222 of 1,639 respondents--or about 14 
percent--noted that their jurisdictions had used JAG funds to procure 
ballistic-resistant body armor in fiscal year 2010. Another 37 
grantees--or about 2 percent--noted that they had used JAG funding for 
stab-resistant vest purchases during the same fiscal year. According 
to BJA, more than 1,000 JAG awards are made each year, and from fiscal 
years 2006 through 2011, 357 grantees indicated to BJA that they 
planned to use JAG awards they received during this period to procure 
ballistic-resistant vests.[Footnote 27] 

NIJ's Body Armor Efforts Focus On Research, Setting Standards, And 
Testing For Compliance: 

Research: 

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. 

Performance Standards: 

NIJ has been setting voluntary body armor performance standards since 
1972.[Footnote 28] 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.[Footnote 29] The NIJ standard classifies 
body armor by levels of ballistic performance, as shown in appendix 
II.[Footnote 30] 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. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: NIJ. 

[End of figure] 

NIJ's current stab-resistant body armor standard specifies the minimum 
performance requirements for body armor to protect the torso against 
slash and stab threats caused by knives and spikes, and describes the 
methodology that NIJ uses for testing this body armor.[Footnote 31] 
The standard classifies stab-resistant body armor into three 
performance levels, based on the body armor's ability to prevent the 
stab threat from penetrating deep enough to injure an officer's 
internal organs at different strike force speeds, or energy levels, as 
shown in appendix III. Also, the standard defines two protection 
classes--the Edge Blade class, which deals with threats that might be 
expected "on the street" from high-quality, commercially machined 
edged-knife blades--and the Spike class, which addresses threats that 
might be expected in a corrections environment from lower-quality 
knife blades and spike-style weapons improvised from other materials. 

To update both the ballistic-and stab-resistant body armor standards, 
NIJ is using a new process that relies on several groups, each with a 
distinct charge, as illustrated in table 1.[Footnote 32] 

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

Group: Body Armor Technology Working Group; 
Composition: Made up of experienced practitioners from local, state, 
tribal and federal agencies and laboratories involved in testing body 
armor; 
Charge: 
* Identify the need for a new or updated standard; 
* Develop a list of practitioners' operational needs and requirements. 

Group: Special Technical Committee (STC); 
Composition: Has 15 to 20 stakeholders. They include law enforcement 
and corrections practitioners with relevant experience. They also 
include technical experts such as engineers, scientists, researchers, 
test laboratory representatives, and standard development experts[A]; 
Charge: 
* Produce three documents[B]; 
* the standard itself; 
* a conformity assessment requirements document, and; 
* a selection and application guide. 

Group: Advisory Working Group; 
Composition: Includes senior-level representatives from major 
stakeholder organizations, such as NIST, the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), Fraternal Order of Police, National Tactical Officers 
Association, IACP, National Sheriffs' Association, and American 
Correctional Association; 
Charge: Provide input to and review the work of the STC. 

Group: Steering Committee; 
Composition: Consists of the following senior advisors: NIJ Deputy 
Director for Science and Technology; Director, Bureau of Justice 
Assistance; Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; 
Standards Executive, DHS Science and Technology; Director, First 
Responders Group, DHS Science and Technology; Director, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, DHS; and Director, NIST, Office of Law 
Enforcement Standards; 
Charge: Generally direct the updating effort and help to ensure 
coordination among relevant federal programs. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information. 

[A] NIJ does not permit body armor industry representatives to be 
members of the STC. According to NIJ, this provision was put in place 
to avoid conflicts of interest and to facilitate the participation of 
law enforcement practitioners. NIJ holds workshops to inform 
manufactures and expects that they will participate in the public 
review of the draft standard and related documents that the STC 
produces. 

[B] The standard contains the minimum design and performance 
requirements that the body armor must meet, as well as the test 
methods to be used to assess the performance. The conformity 
assessment requirements document includes all requirements for a third 
party independent conformity assessment organization to demonstrate 
that body armor meets the standard and typically includes periodic 
factory surveillance and follow-up testing of production items. The 
selection and application guide provides a nontechnical description of 
the standard and conformity assessment requirements; performance 
levels, if applicable; and guidance on procurement, selection, care, 
maintenance, training, and administrative issues. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Compliance Testing: 

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. 
[Footnote 33] 

NIJ-approved laboratories tested 159 body armor models under the NIJ 
compliance testing program in 2010--137 models of ballistic-resistant 
body armor and 22 stab-resistant models. Of the 159 models, 81 of 
them, or about half, passed compliance testing and NIJ added them to 
the appropriate compliant product list. We include additional details 
on the controls that NIJ has designed to manage its compliance testing 
process in the next section of this report. 

DOJ Has Controls and Coordination Mechanisms for Its Body Armor 
Efforts but Could Take Actions to Further Reduce Management Risks: 

BVP Has Designed Several Controls To Manage Its Program: 

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. 

Controls to Ensure Eligibility of Payment Requests: 

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. 

Review Procedures to Help Prevent Improper Payments: 

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.[Footnote 34] 

To identify potential duplicate requests, BJA is to review all payment 
requests submitted during the 1-month period under review. If BJA 
identifies two or more payment requests from one jurisdiction with 
similar total costs, numbers of vests, purchase dates, vest 
manufacturers, vest model numbers, or threat levels, then BJA is to 
require the jurisdiction to provide a response indicating whether the 
payment requests are accurate. BJA officials stated that if the 
responses that jurisdictions provide are not satisfactory, then they 
may request copies of the invoices to support the jurisdictions' 
payment requests; however, BJA has not documented the circumstances 
under which it will request the invoices. During the course of our 
review, BJA officials told us they intended to update the written 
procedures to include a description of the methods for reviewing 
invoices and the additional steps they would like their staff to take 
to identify duplicate payment requests. They said they were doing this 
in response to a November 2011 review by OJP's Office of Audit, 
Assessment, and Management (OAAM).[Footnote 35] BJA officials told us 
they expect to update the BVP system in March 2012 to automatically 
check for potential duplicate payment requests submitted during the 
previous 2 years and that they will revise their procedures shortly 
thereafter. Fully documenting a program's procedures would be 
consistent with standards for internal control in the federal 
government and could help ensure that BJA's review process is 
consistently implemented.[Footnote 36] In January 2012, OJP officials 
told us that to further enhance financial controls, they intended to 
include a review of BVP payments in the financial monitoring 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.[Footnote 37] 

Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Mandatory Wear Requirements: 

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.[Footnote 38] 
In addition, BJA officials told us they are randomly selecting 5 
percent of the jurisdictions requesting payments from fiscal year 2011 
awards to obtain a copy of their mandatory wear policy as part of 
BJA's monthly payment request reviews. Seeking supporting 
documentation from a random selection of all grantees has been 
identified as a grant management best practice by DOJ's Office of the 
Inspector General.[Footnote 39] 

BJA Could Enhance Controls over the BVP Program To Better Manage Risk: 

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. 

BJA Could Improve the Management of Undisbursed Funds from Grants in 
the BVP Program That Have Closed: 

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[Footnote 40]. 

[Side bar: An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal 
liability of the government for the payment of goods and services 
ordered or received. BJA incurs an obligation when it awards BVP funds 
for use by the grantee for the specified 2-year term. Because BJA does 
not actually award the money up front, a disbursement occurs when BJA 
approves the grantee's request for reimbursement. Upon disbursement of 
the funds, BJA then liquidates the obligation. When a grantee does not 
use the BVP funds within the specified term of the grant, BJA can 
extend the period for using the funds or deobligate the funds. A 
deobligation is the cancellation or downward adjustment of previously 
incurred obligations. Source: GAO. End of side bar] 

Figure 3: BVP Program Awards and Disbursements from Fiscal Years 1999 
through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Awards: $22.9 million; 
Disbursements: $22.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Awards: $24.0 million; 
Disbursements: $22.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Awards: $24.5 million; 
Disbursements: $22.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Awards: $23.5 million; 
Disbursements: $20.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Awards: $24 million; 
Disbursements: $20 million. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Awards: $24.2 million; 
Disbursements: $21.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Awards: $23.6 million; 
Disbursements: $20.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Awards: $38.9 million; 
Disbursements: $24.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Awards: $28.6 million; 
Disbursements: $21.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Awards: $20.7 million; 
Disbursements: $14.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Awards: $22.7 million; 
Disbursements: $15.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Awards: $37.0 million; 
Disbursements: $9.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Awards: $24.3 million; 
Disbursements: $0. 

Source: GAO analysis of BVP program data. 

Note: In current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

[End of figure] 

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,[Footnote 41] 

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

* they purchased vests using funds from other sources. 

BJA reports that the $93 million in undisbursed funds can be broken 
down in the following manner (see also figure 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[Footnote 42] 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. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Funds deobligated, fiscal years 1999 through 2008: $14 million (15%); 

Funds not disbursed, fiscal years 2002 through 2009: $27 million (29%); 

Funds available to grantees fiscal years 2010 and 2011: $52 million 
(56%). 

Source: GAO analysis of BVP program data. 

Note: In current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 43] Closing out grants also 
allows agencies to identify and redirect funds to other projects and 
priorities or return the funding to the Treasury. In the case of the 
BVP program, since Congress appropriates its funds though no-year 
appropriations, DOJ does not have to return deobligated BVP funds to 
the Treasury. Instead, it could enhance its management of BVP funding 
through its grants closeout process by, for example, redirecting any 
funds from closed grants to grantees in future award cycles or 
reducing the amount it requests in new appropriations.[Footnote 44] 
Given that the BVP program requested $30 million--and received about 
$23 million--in fiscal year 2012, deobligating this $27 million could 
have significant benefits.[Footnote 45] 

BJA Could Reduce the Risk of Grantee Noncompliance by Better 
Publicizing BVP Program Requirements: 

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.[Footnote 46] Emphasizing the need to comply 
with grant award requirements and including clear terms and conditions 
in funding award documents are leading practices in improving grant 
accountability and are fundamental to internal control standards. 
[Footnote 47] BJA could improve its emphasis by, for example, 
including these requirements in its solicitation announcing the 
availability of BVP funds and in its online system for tracking fund 
use. 

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.[Footnote 48] 

BJA officials stated that BJA was planning to include information on 
the prohibition on using JAG funds as matching funds for the BVP 
program in the fiscal year 2012 BVP announcement and application that 
they plan to release in April 2012, partly in response to our review. 
The officials did not have plans to further publicize the 
documentation retention requirement. Emphasizing the need to comply 
with these program requirements could help BJA improve grant 
accountability. 

BJA also has developed an instructional manual to assist jurisdictions 
in using the online BVP system to complete applications and funding 
requests.[Footnote 49] 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. 

BJA Could Improve Controls over the JAG Program Related to Body Armor: 

BJA could improve consistency across its body armor grant programs by 
harmonizing JAG and BVP purchase and wear requirements. It also could 
strengthen its monitoring practices for grantees' compliance with 
existing program requirements. Further, BJA could enhance its tracking 
of which grantees use JAG awards to purchase body armor to facilitate 
compliance with all existing and any new requirements it might add. 

Harmonizing Program Requirements to Ensure Consistency: 

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.[Footnote 50] 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. 

Strengthening Monitoring and Guidance to Prevent Misuse of Funds: 

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. 
[Footnote 51] 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. 

Enhance Tracking of Funds to Ensure Compliance: 

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.[Footnote 52] 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. 

NIJ Has Designed Mechanisms to Coordinate and Control Its Body Armor 
Efforts: 

NIJ'S Coordination of Body Armor Research and Standards Development: 

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.[Footnote 53] 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.[Footnote 54] 

Another way that NIJ coordinates with stakeholders in the body armor 
arena is through its new process to update its standards, which we 
described in an earlier section of this report. All six of the body 
armor manufacturers and both of the ballistic-resistant and stab-
resistant materials manufacturers we met with expressed concerns that 
the new standards revision process would not afford them sufficient 
opportunities to provide input. However, according to NIJ officials, 
any interested party, including manufacturers, may participate in the 
process to develop the standards by providing input at public 
workshops or providing comments on the draft document. Given that this 
new standards revision process was still under way during the 
production of our report, it was too soon to tell how effective the 
process will be in leveraging stakeholders' knowledge and meeting 
globally accepted principles for stakeholder involvement in standards 
development, such as openness, due process, and transparency.[Footnote 
55] 

NIJ Controls Designed to Manage Body Armor Compliance Testing: 

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;[Footnote 56] 

* be an independent, third-party laboratory and conduct all body armor 
compliance testing within the United States; and: 

* demonstrate its freedom from potential conflicts of interest and 
maintain an independent decisional relationship from its clients, 
affiliates, contractors, and other organizations. 

In addition to undergoing laboratory ballistic or stab-resistance 
testing, the body armor models must meet workmanship and labeling 
requirements.[Footnote 57] 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. 

Figure 5: NIJ Compliance Testing Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Manufacturers submit body armor samples to a NIJ-approved laboratory. 

NIJ-approved laboratory evaluates the body armor's workmanship and 
labels. 

NIJ-approved laboratory conducts ballistic or stab testing according 
to NIJ body armor standards. 

NIJ-approved laboratory provides results of its evaluation and testing 
to NLECTC for its review. 

NLECTC makes a recommendation to NIJ to designate the body armor model 
as being either compliant or not compliant with the relevant NIJ 
standard. 

NIJ makes a final compliance decision based on its review of the
laboratory results and NLECTC recommendation: 
Not compliant: 
Body armor model is not added to the NIJ-compliant product list;  
Compliant: 
Body armor model is added to the NIJ-compliant product list. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ body armor standards. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 58] 

Currently, only NIJ-compliant ballistic-resistant body armor is 
subject to follow-up inspection and testing, but NIJ plans to 
implement a follow-up inspection and testing requirement for NIJ-
compliant stab-resistant body armor following the issuance of the new 
stab-resistant body armor standard in December of 2012. 

NIJ is taking steps to increase the uniformity of compliance testing 
procedures to address factors that may affect the outcome of ballistic 
or stab compliance testing. Officials we met with from all six of the 
body armor manufacturers expressed concerns that the results of the 
compliance tests may be affected by factors not controlled for in the 
standards' testing protocols. For example, three manufacturers said 
that they believe that variations in the clay that body armor is 
mounted to during ballistic testing could affect test results. NIJ has 
provided funding to NIST to conduct research to develop guidelines to 
standardize the process for building the clay-filled backing material 
fixtures used in ballistic testing to improve the repeatability of 
tests. NIJ expects to incorporate the results of this research in the 
update of the 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. 
[Footnote 59] 

DOJ Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Affect the Use and 
Effectiveness of Body Armor: 

Body armor's ability to protect an officer during a critical incident 
depends upon 1) whether the officer is wearing body armor and 2) the 
level of performance and the effectiveness of the armor he or she is 
wearing. A number of factors can affect the use and effectiveness of 
body armor. For example, agency policies as well as the comfort, fit, 
and coverage of the body armor can affect use. Body armor fit and 
coverage can also affect the effectiveness of the armor, along with 
factors including degradation because of wear and tear, care and 
maintenance, and exposure to environmental conditions. DOJ has taken 
steps to address these factors and has efforts under way to further 
advance the use and effectiveness of body armor. In particular, NIJ 
expects to complete an evaluation within the next 3 years on the 
impact of its body armor efforts on law enforcement practices and 
policies and on body armor design and quality. 

Agency policies. Agency policies to purchase and mandate the wearing 
of body armor can promote body armor use. An NIJ-funded 2011 survey 
conducted by the Police Research Executive Forum found that agency 
policy was the second most cited reason, behind safety concerns, why 
officers wore body armor.[Footnote 60] Further, DOJ's Bureau of 
Justice Statistics reports that in 2007--the most recently available 
data--an estimated 80 percent of local police officers were employed 
by a department with some type of body armor wear requirement, 
compared to 74 percent in 2003, and 30 percent in 1990.[Footnote 61] 
Several DOJ activities have addressed agency policy. For example: 

* 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 [hyperlink, 
http://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 [hyperlink, 
http://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 [hyperlink, 
http://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 [hyperlink, 
http://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.[Footnote 62] 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-repellent 
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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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.[Footnote 63] 

* DOJ agreed, in part, with the recommendation that it document 
procedures for its checks on compliance with JAG program requirements, 
acknowledging the importance of closely monitoring this requirement. 
However, it stated that it did not believe that desk reviews are the 
best mechanism for ensuring that grantees are separately tracking and 
administering JAG and BVP funds and stated that it would develop and 
institute additional controls beyond desk reviews to ensure grantees' 
compliance. 

* DOJ agreed with the recommendation that it establish a project 
identifier within the Grants Management System to track 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.[Footnote 64] 

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected 
congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, 
the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
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. 

Signed by: 

David C. Maurer: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Lindsey Graham: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin: 
United States Senate: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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.[Footnote 65] 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. 
[Footnote 66] We also discussed body armor efforts and coordination 
issues with federal officials inside and outside of DOJ. In 
particular, we interviewed officials from DOJ's law enforcement 
components, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives; the Bureau of Prisons; the Drug Enforcement 
Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the U.S. 
Marshals Service. Furthermore, we interviewed officials from the 
Department of Defense's Technical Support Working Group subgroup for 
personnel protection and the Department of Commerce's National 
Institute of Standards and Technology who are involved in body armor 
research, standards, and testing to discuss their efforts and the 
extent to which they coordinate with DOJ. 

Additionally, we obtained perspectives from the state and local law 
enforcement community on DOJ's body armor efforts. Specifically, we 
interviewed officials from the following three law enforcement 
associations: the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Sheriffs' Association. 
[Footnote 67] We selected this nonprobability sample of associations 
based upon the size of the organizations and the types of law 
enforcement officers represented. We also selected a nonprobability 
sample of 10 state and local jurisdictions that received BVP awards in 
fiscal year 2010 and interviewed officials representing each 
jurisdiction. We selected these 10 based upon the type of jurisdiction 
(e.g., state, county, or city); population; and proximity to a GAO 
office for on-site visits. The jurisdictions we selected were Bristol, 
Virginia; the state of California; Dorchester County, Maryland; 
Gaithersburg, Maryland; Hanover County, Virginia; Los Angeles, 
California; the state of Maryland; Tulare County, California; the 
state of Virginia; and Washington, D.C. In particular, with officials 
from state and local jurisdictions, we discussed body armor funding, 
policy, selection, procurement, and use. When possible, we discussed 
body 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.[Footnote 68] 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.[Footnote 69] 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. 

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. 

[End of section] 

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

Types by Performance level: IIA; 
Ammunition used in compliance testing: Handgun bullets: 
* 9 mm and; 
* .40 Smith and Wesson; 
Degree of flexibility: Soft; 
How body armor is worn: Either under or above an officer's uniform. 

Types by Performance level: II; 
Ammunition used in compliance testing: Handgun bullets: 
* 9 mm and; 
* .357 Magnum; 
Degree of flexibility: Soft; 
How body armor is worn: Either under or above an officer's uniform. 

Types by Performance level: IIIA; 
Ammunition used in compliance testing: Handgun bullets: 
* .357 SIG and; 
* .44 Magnum; 
Degree of flexibility: Soft; 
How body armor is worn: Either under or above an officer's uniform. 

Types by Performance level: III; 
Ammunition used in compliance testing: Rifle bullets: 
* 7.62 mm; 
Degree of flexibility: Semi-rigid or rigid; 
How body armor is worn: Above an officer's uniform. 

Types by Performance level: IV; 
Ammunition used in compliance testing: Rifle bullets: 
* .30 caliber armor-piercing bullets; 
Degree of flexibility: Semi-rigid or rigid; 
How body armor is worn: Above an officer's uniform. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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

The stab-resistant body armor standard defines three levels of 
performance for stab-resistant body armor. For each of the three 
protection levels, the test protocol requires that the knife blade or 
spike impact the armor test sample at two energy levels. NIJ 
established a maximum allowable penetration limit of 7 millimeters for 
the first energy level, based upon research indicating that internal 
injuries to organs would be extremely unlikely at this depth. The 
second energy level is an "overtest" to ensure that an adequate margin 
of safety exists. NIJ defined a maximum allowable penetration limit of 
20 millimeters for this second energy level. Table 2 illustrates the 
performance standards at each level. 

Table 2: Stab-Resistant Body Armor Performance Levels: 

Performance level: 1; 
Energy level of stab strike (in joules[A]) at which a penetration of 
7mm is allowed: 24; 
Energy level of stab strike (in joules) at which a penetration of 20mm 
is allowed: 36. 

Performance level: 2; 
Energy level of stab strike (in joules[A]) at which a penetration of 
7mm is allowed: 33; 
Energy level of stab strike (in joules) at which a penetration of 20mm 
is allowed: 50. 

Performance level: 3; 
Energy level of stab strike (in joules[A]) at which a penetration of 
7mm is allowed: 43; 
Energy level of stab strike (in joules) at which a penetration of 20mm 
is allowed: 65. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information. 

[A] A joule is a unit of energy equal to the work done by a force of 1 
newton acting through a distance of 1 meter. A newton is a unit of 
force that produces an acceleration of 1 meter per second per second 
on a mass of 1 kilogram. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: NIST. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department Justice: 
Office of Justice Programs: 
Washington, D.C. 20531: 

February 13, 2012: 

Mr. David C. Maurer: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Maurer: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Law 
Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant Management Controls 
and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program Requirements" (GAO-12-
353). The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appreciates the GAO's work 
in planning and conducting this review and issuing the report. 

The draft GAO report contains five Recommendations for Executive 
Action to the DOJ, which are restated in bold text below and are 
followed by our response. 

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. 

The Office of Justice Programs (OW) agrees with the Recommendation for 
Executive Action. In the absence of statutory restrictions stating 
otherwise, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) intends to use the 
deobligated, undisbursed Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) funds to 
supplement the appropriation amounts in fiscal years (FYs) 2012 and 
2013. 

2. Expand information available to BVP grantees on the current program 
requirement for jurisdictions to retain documentation on all 
transactions for at least three years. 

OJP agrees with the Recommendation for Executive Action. BJA will add 
language in the FY 2012 BVP program requirements on document retention 
standards. Specifically, BJA will update the BVP application 
announcement and certifications for FY 2012 to require that 
jurisdictions retain documentation on all BVP transactions for at 
least three 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. 

OJP generally agrees with the Recommendation for Executive Action. 
After a careful review of applicable law, it has been determined that 
there is sufficient legal authority to establish these requirements in 
the Edward R. Byrne Memorial, Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. 
OJP believes that such requirements must be implemented carefully, as
flexibility to accommodate local and situational issues must be 
provided within the policy framework, and the ability of agencies to 
use JAG funds to purchase ballistic materials/equipment for which 
there is no corresponding standard (e.g., K-9 ballistic vests, 
ballistic shields) must not be impeded. Additionally, OJP must hold 
firmly to our existing commitment that no blanket policy or automatic 
disqualification shall be implemented regarding the mandatory wear 
requirement and its effects on federal death, disability, or 
educational benefits through BJA's Public Safety Officers Benefits
Program. 

4. Document procedures for desk review checks on compliance with JAG 
program requirements. 

OJP agrees, in part, with the Recommendation for Executive Action. Due 
to scope limitations inherent with desk reviews, OW does not believe 
that desk reviews are the best mechanism for ensuring that JAG and BVP 
funds are separately tracked and administered. However, we agree that 
this requirement should be closely monitored. 

OJP's bureaus and program offices, and the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer (OCFO) conduct in-depth monitoring of grants, 
including on-site visits and enhanced programmatic desk reviews, which 
allow grant managers and financial monitors to: follow up on issues 
identified during annual desk reviews; verify grantee activities; 
validate reported information; and assess the status of project 
implementation. Further, during these in-depth monitoring activities, 
grant managers and OCFO staff Accountants ensure that grantees have 
systems in place to adequately track Federal grant funds. 

OJP agrees that BJA should institute additional controls to ensure 
that JAG grantees are in compliance with the program requirements, and 
will work with the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management and the 
OCFO to further strengthen its monitoring activities. 

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

OPJ agrees with the Recommendation for Executive Action. Project 
identifiers for the JAG program are revised annually, as necessary, by 
BJA. As a result, BJA will add a project identifier for "Body Armor — 
Stab-Resistant" in the Grants Management System, which will be 
available for selection during the FY 2012 application process.  

If you have any questions regarding this response, you or your staff 
may contact Maureen Henneberg, Director, Office of Audit, Assessment, 
and Management, at (202) 616-3282.  

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Laurie O. Robinson: 
Assistant Attorney General:  

cc:  

Mary Lou Leary: 
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General:  

James H. Burch, II: 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Operations and Management: 
 
Denise O'Donnell: 
Director: 
Bureau of Justice Assistance:  

Dr. John Laub: 
Director: 
National Institute of Justice:
 
Leigh Benda: 
Chief Financial Officer:  

Maureen Henneberg: 
Director: 
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management:  

Louise Duhamel, Ph.D. 
Acting Director, Audit Liaison Group:
Internal Review and Evaluation Office:
Justice Management Division: 

OPJ Executive Secretariat:
Control Number 20120159: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] FBI, "Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed: Type of Weapon, 
2001-2010," Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2010, table 
27 (Washington, D.C.: 2011), accessed December 29, 2011, [hyperlink, 
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/tables/table27-
leok-feloniously-type-of-weapon-01-10.xls]. 

[2] The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is a nonprofit 
organization that maintains a database of officer deaths and conducts 
research into officer fatality trends to provide information that will 
help promote law enforcement safety. FBI and National Law Enforcement 
Officers Memorial Fund data are not directly comparable. FBI data 
include only incidents where officers were killed by a firearm during 
a felonious assault, while National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 
Fund data do not specify whether the circumstances of the officers' 
deaths were felonious. 

[3] For the purposes of this report, body armor includes ballistic-
resistant and stab-resistant vests. The former are designed to protect 
against bullet penetrations and the trauma associated with bullet 
impacts. The latter are designed to protect against stab weapon 
penetrations. 

[4] The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit nonpartisan institution that 
conducts research and analysis on a range of policy issues. Tom 
LaTourrette, "The Life-Saving Effectiveness of Body Armor for Police 
Officers," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, vol. 7, 
no. 10 (2010). 

[5] For prior GAO work related to Army body armor test procedures, see 
GAO, Warfighter Support: Independent Expert Assessment of Army Body 
Armor Test Results and Procedures Needed Before Fielding, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-119] (Washington D.C.: Oct. 16, 
2009). 

[6] Survey of Indigent Defense Funding from Byrne Memorial Justice 
Assistance Grants, GAO (2012). This survey will be completed in 
February 2012 and the results will be published in a forthcoming GAO 
report on indigent defense. Indigent defense refers to activities that 
help ensure indigent defendants are afforded their right to counsel in 
criminal cases, such as hiring additional public defenders, 
investigators, or other support staff; providing training for public 
defenders; or making technological improvements in defenders' offices 
or systems. 

[7] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005); and American National Standards Institute, United States 
Standards Strategy (New York: Dec. 2, 2010). 

[8] Unlike a random sample, a nonprobability sample is more 
deliberatively chosen, meaning that some elements of the population 
being studied have either no chance or an unknown chance of being 
selected as part of the sample. App. I contains more information on 
the rationale we used to choose our sample. 

[9] See video [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588451] showing how 
ballistic-resistant body armor protects against bullet penetrations 
and blunt trauma. 

[10] See video [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588454] depicting the 
difference between soft and tactical body armor. 

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

[12] 42 U.S.C. § 3796//(g). Under Pub. L. No. 105-181, § 3, 112 Stat. 
512, 513-14, the original legislation required at least half of the 
funds available to be awarded to units of local government with fewer 
than 100,000 residents. The original requirement was subsequently 
amended in the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, Pub. L. 
No. 106-517, § 3(b), 114 Stat. 2407, 2407-08 (Nov. 13, 2000), to the 
current requirement of awarding funds available to each qualifying 
unit of local government with fewer than 100,000 residents and any 
remaining funds available to other qualifying applicants. 

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

[14] Jurisdictions having 2009 and 2010 BVP award funds available may 
request a financial hardship waiver when requesting payment if they 
meet criteria of financial or natural hardship and receive up to 100 
percent of the cost of each vest submitted for reimbursement if this 
cost is not greater than $1,200, excluding taxes, shipping and 
handling fees (if any). 

[15] Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization 
Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, § 1111, 119 Stat. 2960, 3094-3102. 

[16] 42 U.S.C. § 3751(f). The period of a grant shall be 4 years, 
except that renewals and extensions beyond that period may be granted 
at the discretion of the Attorney General. 

[17] GAO, Recovery Act: Department of Justice Could Better Assess 
Justice Assistance Grant Program Impact, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-87] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 
2010). 

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

[19] The BVP program awarded fiscal year 2011 funds at the beginning 
of the next fiscal year. It plans to follow the same pattern and award 
fiscal year 2012 funds at the beginning of the next fiscal year. 

[20] Two of the law enforcement agencies whose officials we met with 
in the 10 jurisdictions implemented a mandatory wear policy in 
response to the BVP requirement. Seven of the other law enforcement 
agencies whose officials we met with already had mandatory wear 
policies in place. One law enforcement agency did not provide 
information on its body armor policy. 

[21] Jurisdictions' body armor replacement cycles can vary in length 
from 3 to 5 years, according to BJA officials. 

[22] BVP grantees may not use JAG funding as matching funds to pay the 
portion of the body armor costs not covered by the BVP program. 

[23] The JAG program awarded fiscal year 2011 funds on or after 
August, 2011. JAG officials told us that the program likely will award 
fiscal year 2012 funds by the end of the fiscal year. 

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

[25] For prior GAO work related to the JAG program, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-87]. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-87]. 

[27] According to JAG officials, if a grantee's planned use of funds 
differs from its actual use once it has received its award, the 
grantee is required to notify DOJ of this change and DOJ stores the 
information in its records. However, JAG officials explained that the 
Grants Management System (GMS) was designed to collect a snapshot of 
data and does not permit updates to the identifiers so JAG staff 
cannot amend the original project identifiers entered into GMS. As a 
result, the project identifiers may not necessarily reflect actual 
purchases through grant funds. 

[28] Meeting these performance standards is not a requirement for 
manufacturers; however, if manufacturers voluntarily produce body 
armor that complies with the standards--and through testing, NIJ 
confirms its compliance--NIJ will add the manufacturers' products to 
its list of NIJ-compliant vests. BVP grantees then can choose vests 
from among those on this list when making their purchases using BVP 
funds. 

[29] NIJ, Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.06 
(Washington, D.C.: July 2008). 

[30] See video [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/multimedia/video#video_id=588455] depicting types 
of ballistic-resistant body armor by levels of ballistic performance. 

[31] NIJ, Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00 
(Washington, D.C.: September 2000). 

[32] NIJ expects to document the new process in detail in a Standard 
Development Process document in April 2012. 

[33] The requirements for laboratories to obtain NIJ approval are 
discussed in a later section of this report. 

[34] BJA allows for a 10 percent variance in the number of vests 
purchased over a 3-year period as compared to the number of officers 
in the jurisdiction to account for officer turnover. 

[35] 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). 

[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[38] According to BVP program officials, 108 of the 110 jurisdictions 
have provided mandatory wear policies. The BVP program will not make 
BVP funds available to the remaining 2 jurisdictions until the 
jurisdictions provide copies of their mandatory wear policies. 

[39] DOJ, Office of the Inspector General, Improving the Grant 
Management Process (Washington, D.C.: February 2009). 

[40] Because the BVP program awards funds for one fiscal year at the 
beginning of the next fiscal year, recipients had not used the bulk of 
their 2010 and 2011 fiscal year awards by November 2011, which is 
reflected in the drop-off in reimbursements--or disbursements--in the 
figure. 

[41] Beginning with awards made in fiscal year 2008, BVP has 
automatically extended the 2-year grant term for those grantees that 
still had undisbursed BVP award balance amounts from prior fiscal 
years. In practice, this means that if a grantee with an expiring BVP 
award applies for additional funding in a subsequent fiscal year, the 
program automatically extends the term of the award that is expiring 
for another 2 years and subtracts the amount of extended funds from 
the new award. 

[42] Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 529(b), 
123 Stat. 524, 600-01. A rescission is legislation passed by Congress 
that cancels the availability of budgetary authority previously 
enacted before the authority would otherwise expire. According to DOJ 
officials, the 2009 rescission affected the entire department and DOJ 
looked to all of its programs for deobligated funds that could offset 
the impact. 

[43] See GAO, Grants Management: Attention Needed to Address 
Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-432] (Washington, D.C.: Aug 29, 
2008). In addition, the DOJ Inspector General has reported on the 
importance of timely grant closeout. See DOJ, Office of the Inspector 
General, The Department of Justice's Grant Closeout Process, Audit 
Report 07-05, (Washington, D.C.: December 2006). 

[44] The National Procurement Fraud Task Force's Grant Fraud 
Committee, which is chaired by DOJ's Inspector General, also has 
reported on the importance of closing grants in a timely manner. See 
the committee's report A Guide to Grant Oversight and Best Practices 
for Combating Grant Fraud (Washington, D.C.: February 2009). 

[45] The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, 
Pub. L. No. 112-55, 125 Stat. 552, 616, provided $24 million to BVP 
program for law enforcement armor vests, including $1.5 million 
transferred directly to NIST's Office of Law Enforcement Standards for 
research, testing, and evaluation programs. 

[46] OJP's Financial Guide, which is a general reference manual for 
all DOJ awards, also includes information on the requirement that 
award recipients retain records for "equipment" for a 3-year period 
and the prohibition against commingling different sources of federal 
funding, but the guide is not specific to the BVP program and does not 
explicitly state how these provisions apply to BVP funding recipients. 

[47] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 
See also Grant Accountability Project, Guide to Opportunities for 
Improving Grant Accountability. 

[48] To address jurisdictions' questions about the BVP program, BJA 
has established a Help Desk that can be reached through a toll-free 
telephone number or by email. From January to December 2011, the Help 
Desk received 22,663 telephone calls and 9,650 emails. According to 
the BVP program's records, call and email volume to the Help Desk was 
generally consistent from fiscal year 2008 through 2010; however, we 
found that from 2010 through 2011, call volume increased nearly 30 
percent and email volume doubled. BVP officials did not provide an 
explanation for these spikes. 

[49] The instructional manual provides definitions of the required 
elements that jurisdictions need to input into the online system and 
step-by-step instructions for how to review applications and payment 
requests from the law enforcement agencies in the jurisdiction's 
purview. 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[51] Special conditions set forth specific terms that grantees must 
meet, in addition to the general conditions associated with the grant, 
in order to receive funds. 

[52] Prior to this time, JAG program staff selected the identifiers 
for the grantees based upon the planned activities the grantee 
described in its application. 

[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[54] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[55] For a discussion of globally accepted principles for developing 
standards, see American National Standards Institute, United States 
Standards Strategy. 

[56] As set forth in 15 C.F.R. pt. 285, the National Voluntary 
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredits testing and 
calibration laboratories that are found competent to perform specific 
tests or calibrations or types of tests or calibrations. The 
procedures, requirements, and guidance for NVLAP accreditation of body 
armor testing and calibration laboratories are set forth in NIST 
Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements, and in NIST 
Handbook 150-24, NVLAP Personal Body Armor. 

[57] The laboratories inspect the body armor samples and ensure that 
they are identical and free of inferior workmanship, such as wrinkles, 
blisters, fabric tears, or fraying. The laboratories also inspect the 
body armor labels to ensure that they contain all required information 
specified in the standard, such as the name of the manufacturer, the 
rated level of protection, the date of manufacture, and identification 
of the proper orientation of the armor relative to the wearer. 

[58] The ballistic testing conducted in the follow-up inspection and 
testing reflects only a portion of the ballistic testing that is 
conducted during the initial compliance testing, and it is therefore 
not a conclusive indication that the armor in production would satisfy 
the full requirements of the NIJ standard. 

[59] See ISO/IEC Guide 65: 1996, General Requirements for Bodies 
Operating Product Certification Systems. 

[60] Heath Grant, Bruce Kubu, Bruce Taylor, Jack Roberts, Megan 
Collins, and Daniel J. Woods, Standing Up Under Fire-Body Armor Use, 
Care, and Performance in Real World Conditions: Findings from a 
National Survey, (forthcoming). 

[61] The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a component of OJP with a 
mission to collect, analyze, publish and disseminate information on 
crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of 
justice systems at all levels of government. Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Local Police Departments, 2007, NCJ 231174 (Washington, 
D.C.: December 2010). 

[62] NIJ's body armor standards do not address exposure to ultraviolet 
light (UV); however, NIJ does not believe a UV test is needed since 
the ballistic materials are enclosed in a cover that provides 
protection against UV light. Further, NIJ officials noted that when in 
use, the covered ballistic materials are inserted into a carrier vest 
that offers further protection against UV exposure. 

[63] K-9 ballistic vests are protective vests that dogs working with 
law enforcement officers wear while on duty. Vests modified for K-9 
units have not been tested by NIJ. 

[64] For example, DOJ suggested that we use "closed" rather than 
"expired" when discussing those grants with undisbursed balances that 
could be deobligated. We agreed, and changed the language throughout 
the report, as well as within recommendation 1, accordingly. 

[65] Survey of Indigent Defense Funding from Byrne Memorial Justice 
Assistance Grants, GAO (2012). The survey will be completed in 
February 2012 and the results will be published in a forthcoming GAO 
report on indigent defense. 

[66] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005); American National Standards Institute, United States Standards 
Strategy (New York: August 2000). 

[67] 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. 

[68] Owing to scheduling issues and time constraints we did not 
interview law enforcement officers from the jurisdictions of Tulare 
County, California, or the state of Virginia, and were unable to 
interview female officers from the jurisdictions of Bristol, Virginia; 
Dorchester County, Maryland, and the State of California or male 
officers from the jurisdiction of Hanover County, Virginia. 

[69] 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. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.