1. Overview of the Guide

Lightweight body armor has been widely available for use by law
enforcement personnel for more than 25 years. The dramatic reduction in
officer homicides following the introduction of body armor, as shown in
exhibit 1, attests to the protection it provides. This success story extends
far beyond protection from handguns--an estimated 2,500[1] lives have
been spared, including cases in which body armor prevented serious
injuries to officers from other types of assaults or accidents.

The National Institute of Justice[2] (NIJ) has developed standards for body
armor performance through its Office of Law Enforcement Standards
(OLES). The standard for ballistic resistance of body armor was developed
28 years ago and has gone through four revisions. In September 2000, NIJ
introduced its standard for stab and puncture resistance of body armor.

Body armor is tested as a part of the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) voluntary equipment testing
program to determine compliance with the NIJ standards, and NLECTC
disseminates those test results and other pertinent information to the law
enforcement and corrections communities. A consumer product list of
armor models that comply with the requirements of the standards is
available from NLECTC through its Web site, JUSTNET, at
http://www.justnet.org.[3]

While body armor is a household word in the criminal justice community,
questions about its selection and use are frequently asked. This guide
responds to commonly expressed concerns. It provides information to help
determine what level of protection is consistent with the threats to which
individual officers are exposed. It also discusses armor selection from the
variety of styles available, together with the proper care of armor in
service. The NIJ standards are discussed in detail, as well as the use of the
standards in armor procurement. In addition, the guide discusses
administrative concerns, including the issue of replacing inservice armor,
and describes other sources of information.

NIJ asks all departments to exercise prudent judgment in selecting armor
appropriate to their needs. In so doing, NIJ urges proper attention to those
factors that affect the wearability of armor in order to encourage routine,
full-time use by all on-duty officers. The temptation to order armor that
provides more protection than realistically needed should be resisted,
because doing so may increase the likelihood that the armor will not be
worn routinely.

This guide opens with a history of the development of body armor and
background on the lives it has saved. The heart of the guide--how to
proceed to select and purchase body armor--begins with chapter 6 and
includes chapters explaining how to assess the level of protection needed,
things to think about when selecting armor, and ways to keep it in proper
working order. An extensive collection of appendixes is available for
reference.

--------------------------------

2. A History of Body Armor

Humans throughout recorded history have used various types of materials
to protect themselves from injury in combat and other dangerous
situations. At first, protective clothing and shields were made from animal
skins. As civilizations became more advanced, wooden shields and then
metal shields came into use. Eventually, metal also was used as "clothing,"
what we now refer to as the suit of armor associated with the knights of
the Middle Ages. However, with the advent of firearms (c.1500), most of
the traditional protective devices were no longer effective. In fact, the only
real protection available against firearms were manmade barriers, such as
stone or masonry walls; manmade fortifications such as trenches and
ditches; or natural barriers, such as rocks and trees.

One of the first recorded instances of soft armor use was by the medieval
Japanese, who used armor manufactured from silk. Although the first U.S.
law enforcement officer to lose his life in the line of duty, New York City
Deputy Sheriff Isaac Smith, was shot and killed in 1792,[4] it was not
until the late 19th century that the first use of soft armor in the United
States was recorded. At that time, the military explored the possibility of
using soft armor manufactured from silk. The project even attracted
congressional attention after the assassination of President William
McKinley in 1901. But while the garments were shown to be effective
against low-velocity bullets (traveling at 400 feet per second (ft/s) or less),
they did not offer protection against the new generation of handgun
ammunition being introduced at that time that traveled at velocities of
more than 600 feet per second. This, along with the prohibitive cost of
manufacturing the garment ($80 each, which is equal to approximately
$1,500 in today's dollars) made the concept unacceptable. Armor of this
type was said to have been worn by Archduke Francis Ferdinand of
Austria when he was killed by a shot to the head, thereby precipitating
World War I.[5]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office lists records dating back to 1919
for various designs of bullet-resistant garments. One of the first
documented instances where such a vest was demonstrated for use by law
enforcement officers is detailed in the April 2, 1931, edition of the
Washington, D.C., Evening Star, which reported on a vest demonstration
for members of the Metropolitan Police Department. However, none of
these designs proved entirely effective or feasible for law enforcement or
corrections use.

The next generation of ballistic vests was introduced during World War II.
The "flak jacket," constructed of ballistic nylon, provided protection
primarily from munitions fragments and was ineffective against most
pistol and rifle threats. These vests also were very cumbersome and bulky
and were restricted primarily to military use. It would not be until the late
1960s that new fibers would be discovered that would make today's
generation of concealable body armor possible.

The History of NIJ's Body Armor Testing Program

During the 1960s this country witnessed a dramatic rise in officer
fatalities. From 1966 to 1971, the number of law enforcement officers
killed each year in the line of duty more than doubled, from 57 to 129 (see
exhibit 1, page 1). Concerned by this rapid increase in officer fatalities and
recognizing that a majority of the homicides were inflicted with handguns,
the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ)-
-predecessor of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)--initiated a research
program to investigate the development of a lightweight body armor that
on-duty police could wear full time.

The investigation readily identified new materials that could be woven
into a lightweight fabric with excellent ballistic-resistant properties.
Following initial laboratory research, the agency concluded that the
objective of producing body armor suitable for full-time police use was
achievable. In a parallel effort, the National Bureau of Standards' (now
known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology) Law
Enforcement Standards Laboratory (now known as the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards (OLES)) developed a performance standard[6] that
defined ballistic-resistant requirements for police body armor. The
National Bureau of Standards was a part of the NIJ Technology
Assessment Program, which today is known as the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC).

Of all the equipment developed and evaluated in the 1970s by NIJ, one of
its most significant achievements was the development of body armor that
employed DuPont's Kevlar[registered trademark] ballistic fabric, which
was originally developed to replace steel belting in vehicle tires. Lester
Shubin, who served as NIJ Technology Assessment Program Manager
from 1971 to 1991, suspected the new substance might have potential to
greatly improve personal armor. He and Nicholas Montanarelli, then an
Army Land Warfare technology specialist, took a piece of
Kevlar[registered trademark] to a gun range, folded it over a couple of
times, and shot at it. The bullets did not go through.

During the following 5 years, from 1971 to 1976, more than $3 million of
NIJ funds were devoted to the development of body armor. The research
and development program was a team effort involving several of the most
innovative and technologically advanced private and government
organizations in the country. Contractors from the private sector were The
Aerospace Corporation and MITRE Corporation. The U.S. Army's
contribution included the efforts of Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving
Grounds, and Natick Laboratories. The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
and the National Bureau of Standards were also involved in the program,
as were the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Secret
Service.

The development of body armor by NIJ was a four-phase effort that took
place over several years. The first phase involved testing Kevlar[registered
trademark] fabric to determine whether it could stop a lead bullet. The
second phase involved determining the number of layers of material
necessary to prevent penetration by bullets of varying speeds and calibers
and developing a prototype vest that would protect officers against the
most common threats--the .38 Special and the .22 Long Rifle bullets.
Bullets from 9mm, .45, and .32 caliber weapons also were investigated.

By 1973, researchers at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal responsible for vest
design had developed a garment made of seven layers of Kevlar[registered
trademark] fabric for use in field trials. During this preliminary testing,
environmental trials determined that the penetration resistance of
Kevlar[registered trademark] was degraded when wet. The bullet-resistant
properties of the fabric also diminished upon exposure to ultraviolet light,
including sunlight. Dry cleaning agents and bleach also had a negative
effect on the antiballistic properties of the fabric, as did repeated washing.
To protect against these problems, the vest was designed with
waterproofing, as well as with fabric coverings to prevent exposure to
sunlight and other degrading agents.

The third phase of the initiative involved extensive medical testing to
determine the performance level of body armor that would be necessary to
save police officers' lives. It was clear to researchers that even when a
bullet was stopped by the flexible fabric, the impact and resulting trauma
from the bullet would leave a severe bruise at a minimum and, at worst,
could kill by damaging critical organs. Subsequently, Army scientists
designed tests to determine the effects of blunt trauma--the injuries
suffered from forces created by the bullet impacting the armor. A
byproduct of the research on blunt trauma was the improvement of tests
that measure blood gases, which indicate the extent of injuries to the
lungs.

The final phase involved monitoring the armor's wearability and
effectiveness. An initial test in three cities determined that the vest was
wearable, it did not cause undue stress or pressure on the torso, and it did
not prevent the normal body movement necessary for police work. In
1975, an extensive field test of the new Kevlar [registered trademark] body
armor was conducted, with 15 urban police departments cooperating. Each
department served a population larger than 250,000, and each had
experienced officer assault rates higher than the national average. The tests
involved 5,000 garments, including 800 purchased from commercial
sources. Among the factors evaluated were comfort when worn for a full
working day, its adaptability in extreme temperatures, and its durability
through long periods of use.

Equally important in this test was the psychological effect of the garments
on the officers--whether wearing them would enable them to be more
confident or relaxed in their encounters with the public or inspire them to
take more chances with their lives or the lives of others. The tests showed
that the armor could be worn without restricting officers' ability to do their
jobs and, more importantly, that the vests worked.

The first instance of a vest saving a participating officer's life occurred less
than 6 months after it was issued to him. During the 1-year demonstration
period, 18 shooting incidents occurred in which body armor successfully
protected the officers. The demonstration project armor issued by NIJ was
designed to ensure a 95-percent probability of survival after being hit with
a .38 caliber bullet at a velocity of 800 ft/s. Furthermore, the probability of
requiring surgery if hit by a projectile was to be 10 percent or less.

The Use of Body Armor Today

A final report released in 1976 concluded that the new ballistic material
was effective in providing a bullet-resistant garment that was light and
wearable for full-time use. Private industry was quick to recognize the
potential market for the new generation of body armor, and body armor
became commercially available in quantity even before the NIJ
demonstration program.

For the past 25 years, the routine use of body armor by law enforcement
officers occurred primarily in the United States because assault by
firearms on law enforcement officers in other countries was not as
common. However, with the proliferation of international terrorism and
related firearms attacks against officers, the use of body armor in other
countries is becoming increasingly commonplace.

NLECTC has seen a dramatic increase in the number of submissions of
new body armor models from manufacturers around the world. The NIJ
standard for ballistic-resistant body armor has gained worldwide
acceptance as a benchmark to judge the effectiveness of a given body
armor model. In response, NIJ is reaching out to the international
community in a cooperative effort for the development of future revisions
of the standard.

While the most common type of threat faced by a police officers is from a
gun, the most common threat a correctional officer is likely to face is from
a knife or ice pick. In response to the needs of the corrections community,
NIJ has developed a performance standard for stab- and puncture-resistant
body armor, through a collaboration of OLES, the U.S. Secret Service, and
the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) in the United Kingdom
(UK). In September 2000, NIJ introduced a performance standard for stab-
and puncture-resistant body armor, Stab Resistance of Personal Body
Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00.

Today, more than 80 manufacturers produce body armor and participate in
NIJ's voluntary compliance testing program. Other types of bullet-resistant
armor, which were much heavier and bulkier than vests made with the new
technology, have virtually disappeared from the market. Estimates indicate
that the body armor industry conducts $200 million in business in the
United States annually, the majority of which is for use related to law
enforcement and the military.[7]

NIJ's body armor program was instrumental in developing a garment that
is not only wearable, but that has contributed significantly to the safety of
our Nation's law enforcement officers. Every facet of the development
phase was aimed at protecting the life of the law officer on the street. This
remains the program's purpose today.

--------------------------------

3. Why Wear Body Armor?

The Cost

Since the death of New York City Deputy Sheriff Isaac Smith in 1792,
more than 15,000 officers have fallen in the line of duty--many of these
men and women killed by firearms.[8]

The use of weapons of all types, particularly handguns, by those with
criminal intent, poses a constant threat to police officers, whether they are
responding to a domestic quarrel or to an armed robbery. All too
frequently, a domestic disturbance erupts into violence when family
members redirect their anger toward the officer attempting to effect a
peaceful resolution. Similarly, a routine traffic stop can result in an
unexpected armed confrontation. At times like these, an officer needs the
protection provided by body armor.

Logic dictates the routine use of body armor. Still there are those who do
not wear it regularly, often in spite of departmental regulations to do so.
Those who do not wear armor usually claim that the bulk and weight of
armor make it uncomfortable. But case studies and statistics support the
importance of the routine use of body armor. As part of the Uniform
Crime Reports, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) publishes its
annual report Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA),
which contains detailed analysis of the situations and circumstances
surrounding assaults on law enforcement officers--a "must read" for all
law enforcement personnel.

The 1994 edition of the LEOKA report contains a summary of an FBI
study that demonstrates that the risk of sustaining a fatal injury for officers
who do not routinely wear body armor is 14 times greater than for officers
who do. (A copy of the report summary is included in appendix C of this
guide.)

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) believes that it is in the best interest
of all police departments to promote the full-time use of body armor.
Aside from armor sparing officers and their families pain and suffering,
the economic impact on a department when an officer is killed in the line
of duty is staggering.

The following statistics illustrate the importance of wearing body armor to
the entire law enforcement community and beyond. Since 1973 and as of
January 1, 2001, a total of 2,500 "saves" have been attributed to the use of
body armor. Fifty-eight percent of these saves were connected with
felonious assaults and 42 percent with accidents, such as car crashes. Forty
percent of the felonious assaults involved firearms, 12 percent represented
cutting or slashing assaults, and 6 percent involved other types of assaults.
According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP)/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club[registered trademark], the
estimated cost of an officer's death is $1.3 million. This figure is based on
funeral expenses, death and pension benefits, and the cost to a department
to hire and train a replacement officer.

In 1976, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Act (42 U.S.C. 3796,
et. seq.) was enacted into law by Congress to assist the families of State
and local law enforcement officers and firefighters killed or permanently
disabled in the line of duty. The families of these officers slain on or after
September 29, 1976, were eligible to receive a $50,000 death benefit
payment. In 1984, families of Federal law enforcement officers and
firefighters killed or disabled in the line of duty were also made eligible.
The benefit was increased to $100,000 in 1988, with a provision that this
amount would be adjusted each October 1 to reflect the percentage of
increase in the Consumer Price Index. For fiscal year (FY) 1999, the
amount was $143,943. Since 1977, the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA), which administers this program, has received an average of 275
claims each year. In FY99, the PSOB program paid out a total of
$29,837,908 in death and disability benefits to qualifying survivors under
this program, and in FY00, a total of $28,292,684 in death and disability
benefits.[9]

In addition to the Federal PSOB program, many States also have benefits
available to the survivors; however, each State varies as to the benefits
they provide. Among the various benefits available are a one-time death
benefit, a pension payment, waiver of property taxes, tuition-free
education, and continuation of health care coverage for surviving children
and/or spouses.

Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS), an organization dedicated to
assisting and providing resources to the families of slain officers, has
compiled information on benefits available to law enforcement survivors
in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Information is
updated on an ongoing basis. This information includes benefits sources
and contact information. Information on how to contact COPS is included
in the resource list (appendix A) at the end of this publication.

The Ballistic Threat

The current generation of body armor was developed specifically to
protect against injury from assault with handguns. A review of the
statistics concerning weapons confiscated nationwide during the period
from 1964 to 1974 identified the .38 caliber handgun, firing bullets at a
velocity of 800 ft/s, as the most common weapon threat to officers. In fact,
.38 caliber and smaller handguns accounted for more than 85 percent of
the confiscated weapons. Since the introduction of body armor in the
mid-1970s, a review of the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and
Assaulted report continues to support the fact that the most common threat
faced by law enforcement officers is handgun assaults. However, trends
indicate that the 9mm semiautomatic pistol has surpassed the .38 caliber
handgun as the most common threat (see exhibit 2).

When an individual is hit by a bullet, the extent of the injury sustained
depends on where the bullet strikes the body and the path or trajectory of
the bullet into or through the body. Injury to the vital organs is most often
fatal. Thus, the armor's primary and most obvious purpose is to prevent a
bullet from penetrating the torso.

In the case of hard armor, such as metal, rigid reinforced plastic, or
ceramic materials, it is possible to use armor of such a thickness that it
does not appreciably deform from the bullet impact. If, however, the armor
that covers the torso deforms from the bullet impact, the surface of the
armor against the body at the point of impact will be forced against or into
the skin. Unlike a penetrating wound, in which the skin is broken and the
bullet tears through the body, the deformation of armor from bullet impact
results in blunt trauma. This type of nonpenetrating injury can cause
severe contusions (bruises) or internal damage and can even result in
death. As a result, this NIJ standard also evaluates the capabilities of the
armor to prevent injury from blunt trauma.

Simply speaking, the design of ballistic-resistant armor requires
identifying the threat, selecting a material or combination of materials that
will resist that threat, and determining the number of layers of material
necessary to prevent both penetration and blunt trauma injury. The armor's
final weight is an important design factor in the selection of the
ballistic-resistant material or materials to be used. The goal is to design the
lightest possible unit that achieves the desired protection while still
providing comfort and not restricting movement.

The degree of threat to armor from handguns depends on many factors:
caliber, bullet configuration and composition (e.g., lead roundnose,
jacketed hollow-point, full metal jacketed, armor piercing), weight, and
impact velocity. Thus, armor that defeats a specific projectile at one
impact velocity may not defeat the same caliber projectile at a higher
velocity or of a different composition or configuration.

On the whole, a continuous range of threat levels undoubtedly exists for
the different weapon and ammunition combinations available. As with
clothing, which allows selection from a limited range of garment type and
weight depending on climate and season, it has proven satisfactory to
establish six armor types (protection level classifications) that enable the
selection of armor to protect against most common threats, including
sporting and armor-piercing rifle bullets.

All departments should periodically review the information used to select
the level of protection (armor type classification) when the armor was
purchased. Evaluate changes in service weapons or ammunition with
respect to the type of armor used by officers. Equally important are
changes in the weapons or ammunition of the local criminal population. If
changes have occurred and increased the threat to officers, the department
should consider upgrading its armor.

It should be noted that concealable ballistic-resistant body armor is
potentially vulnerable to knife attack; hence, all officers should exercise
due caution when confronted with these situations. However, numerous
incidents have been documented in which body armor lessened injury.
Several manufacturers currently market vests claiming to offer protection
against knife attacks, although most of these vests carry warnings
indicating that they do not provide protection against all sharp-edged and
pointed threats, just as a ballistic-resistant vest cannot be totally
bulletproof.

The details of armor classification and selection are discussed in chapters
6, 7, and 8. For the moment, it is sufficient to recognize the importance of
being realistic in assessing the threat to officers. The weight and bulk of
body armor can increase significantly as greater threat protection is
demanded; both of these factors can discourage full-time use of body
armor.

The Stab Threat              Order your Point Blank body armor

The most common threat a correctional officer is likely to face is from a
knife or ice pick. In response to the needs of the corrections community,
NIJ has developed a performance standard for stab- and puncture-resistant
body armor, through a collaboration of the Office of Law Enforcement
Standards (OLES), the U.S. Secret Service, and the Police Scientific
Development Branch (PSDB) in the United Kingdom (UK). Stab
Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00, was released
in September 2000.

NIJ Standard-0115.00 places stab-resistant body armor into two
categories, based on the kind of threat it is designed to stop. One category
of protection, designated the "edged blade" class, stops engineered or
high-quality blades, such as kitchen knives or those purchased at sporting
goods stores, and represents the threat more commonly found on the street.
The second category, the "spike" class, stops the types of improvised
weapons commonly found in correctional facilities, typically of lower
quality materials that may have been sharpened on concrete or other rough
surfaces.

Not Just Bullets and Knives

The original NIJ body armor effort focused solely on the urgent need to
protect law enforcement personnel from handgun assault. As with most
new technology, body armor has proven useful in ways not thought of
when first put into service. The same properties that provide ballistic
protection--resistance to penetration and blunt trauma--when combined
with abrasion resistance have also saved many officers from serious
physical injury in vehicular accidents.

In one incident, during the course of a routine patrol, an officer was
negotiating a sweeping right-hand curve at a high rate of speed when his
car ran off the edge of the pavement. As he brought it back onto the
pavement, he lost control. After fishtailing several times, the car became
airborne and crashed head on into a rocky hillside. The officer suffered a
fractured sternum, sprained right thumb, possible concussion, and pain in
the neck area. There is every reason to believe that the body armor the
officer was wearing saved the officer's life.

Although the development of air bags and other safety-related
technologies in vehicles has lessened the severity of injuries, medical
experts have concluded that body armor mitigates injury in head-on
collisions when the driver is thrown against the steering wheel,
particularly when the seat belt is fastened.

Officers assigned to motorcycle duty are especially vulnerable to injury in
vehicular accidents. A member of the California Highway Patrol was
traveling at approximately 45 mph when he heard the sound of a vehicle
approaching rapidly from the rear. He was attempting to move to the right
when he was struck by the vehicle in the left rear. The motorcycle spun
counterclockwise. He was thrown from the motorcycle, landing on his
back and sliding on the pavement for approximately 100 feet before
coming to a rest. He sustained only minor injuries to his right elbow and
right leg. This convincing example demonstrates the nonballistic
protection that body armor can offer. In addition, body armor also has
protected numerous officers from injury from physical assault with 2 by
4's, baseball bats, and other rigid objects.

2,500 Reasons

The first recorded incident of a U.S. law enforcement officer's life being
saved as a result of wearing a concealable ballistic vest occurred May 17,
1973, in Detroit, Michigan. Police Officer Ron Jagielski, along with
several other officers, was working on a plainclothes assignment involving
narcotics trafficking. Ready to enter the residence under surveillance and
make the bust, Jagielski was hit in the chest when a bullet pierced the
building's front door. A .38 caliber special bullet was later found
embedded in his ballistic vest, just below the area of his heart. Had it not
been for the protection afforded by the body armor, Jagielski would surely
have suffered a fatal injury.

Nearly a quarter-century later, on January 3, 1997, Deputy Henry Huff
became the 2,000th law enforcement official to be placed on the
IACP/DuPont list of those saved by concealable body armor. A member of
the Walton County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office, Huff was shot at point blank
range during a traffic stop by a 16-year-old male armed with a 9mm
weapon. The surveillance camera in Huff's squad car caught the entire
incident on videotape. Despite being shot twice in the chest, Huff was
spared from serious injury.

The IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club[registered trademark]
commemorated the 2,500th body armor save in November 2000 by
recognizing five officers selected from five different branches of law
enforcement. One of the saves was Officer Jeffrey Seaman of the
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) Police Department, who found himself the
subject of cartoonist Rob Armstrong's syndicated strip, "Jump Start." For 2
weeks, the strip featured Officer Seaman's story, depicting the actual
shooting event, the reactions of his department and family, including his
mother, a corporal in the same department, who had always encouraged
her son to wear his body armor. The strip concluded during National
Police Week in Washington, D.C., with Officer Seaman visiting the wall
at the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial, and, in the final
strip, being inducted in the Survivors' Club.

In 1987, a study by DuPont found that while most police officers
recognized the dangers of their jobs and 65 percent of those surveyed
owned body armor, only 15 to 20 percent actually used it. The reasons
given for not wearing body armor ranged from legitimate concerns such as
comfort and weight, to misconceptions about an officer's ability to survive
blunt trauma caused by a bullet that has been stopped by a vest.

In that same year, the IACP Board of Officers authorized the formation of
the IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club[registered trademark]. The
objectives of this club are to:

o Reduce death and disability by encouraging the increased wear of
personal body armor through documentation of the armor's effectiveness.

o Recognize individuals who, as a result of wearing personal body armor,
have survived a life-threatening incident.

o Serve the law enforcement community by collecting these important
data and sharing valuable information related to these survivor incidents.

By publishing the accounts of saves in Police Chief magazine and
engaging in other supportive efforts, the Survivors' Club has helped
educate law enforcement officers about the benefits of always wearing
body armor. Many departments now routinely provide body armor and
mandate its wear while officers are on duty. In some locations, concerned
citizens have undertaken fundraising activities to purchase body armor for
local law enforcement officers.

According to a 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of 700 State
and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more officers,[10]
approximately 40 percent of sheriff's and municipal police departments,
and 25 percent of State and county police departments, require all field
officers to wear body armor, compared to almost 30 percent in the same
survey conducted in 1993.[11]

The 1993 BJS survey also reported that more than 80 percent of the 661
agencies surveyed for that year provided either body armor or cash
allowances to purchase body armor to all of their uniformed patrol
officers. In comparison, the same survey conducted by BJS in 1987
indicated that only 28 percent of agencies surveyed provided armor or a
cash allowance to purchase armor.[12]

--------------------------------

4. Body Armor Construction

How Does Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor Work?

When a handgun bullet strikes body armor, it is caught in a "web" of very
strong fibers. These fibers absorb and disperse the impact energy that is
transmitted to the vest from the bullet, causing the bullet to deform, or
"mushroom." Additional energy is absorbed by each successive layer of
material in the vest, until such time as the bullet has been stopped.

Because the fibers work together both in the individual layer and with
other layers of material in the vest, a large area of the garment becomes
involved in preventing the bullet from penetrating. This also helps in
dissipating the forces that can cause nonpenetrating injuries (what is
commonly referred to as "blunt trauma") to internal organs. Unfortunately,
at this time no material exists that would allow a vest to be constructed
from a single ply of material.

Today's generation of concealable body armor can provide varying levels
of protection to defeat most common low- and medium-energy handgun
rounds. Body armor designed to defeat rifle fire is of either semirigid or
rigid construction, typically incorporating hard materials such as ceramics
and metals. Because of its weight and bulkiness, it is impractical for
routine use by uniformed patrol officers and is reserved for use in tactical
situations, where it is worn externally for short periods of time when
confronted with higher level threats.

How Does Stab-Resistant Body Armor Work?

Stab-resistant body armor works by many of the same principles as
ballistic-resistant body armor. Stab- and puncture-resistant armors are
made from a variety of materials. The most common designs use multiple
layers of materials. These layers are made from extremely strong fibers
that can be either woven or laminated together. Other materials used are
metals and composites. As the threat impacts the armor, the materials
either deflect the threat, or due to their very high levels of tensile strength
and cut and/or tear resistance, they slightly "stretch" before breaking or
being cut. This "stretching" spreads the impact forces over a larger area of
the armor and dissipates the strike energy from the threat, eventually
stopping the threat. Most often, multiple layers of materials are needed to
successfully stop typical threats. Some of the top layers of material may be
defeated, but if properly designed, the armor will stop the threat with little
to no penetration. The backing layers provide additional strength to the
armor, and each layer assists in dissipating the strike energy.

Many of the same materials are used in both ballistic-resistant armor and
stab-resistant armor, with one important distinction. Because knives,
picks, and spikes are pointed, the initial contact forces for stabs threats are
very high. These high forces pose a risk to ballistic-resistant armor. To
counter this, stab-resistant armors are normally made from very tightly
woven fabrics or from very closely spaced laminated layers.

Construction Methods

Typically, concealable body armor is constructed of multiple layers of
ballistic- or stab-resistant materials, assembled into the "protective panel."
The protective panel is then inserted into the "carrier," which is
constructed of conventional garment fabrics such as nylon or cotton. The
protective panel may be permanently sewn into the carrier or may be
removable. Although the overall finished product looks relatively simple
in construction, the protective panel is very complex.

Manmade fabrics are available from a number of manufacturers in various
styles and compositions, each type having unique ballistic- or
stab-resistant properties. The body armor manufacturer may construct a
given model of ballistic- or stab-resistant panel from a single fabric style
or from two or more styles in combination. The location and number of
layers of each style within the multiple-layer protective panel influence the
overall performance of the panel. In addition, some manufacturers coat the
fabric with various materials. For example, the manufacturer may add a
layer of nonballistic or stab-resistant material for the sole purpose of
increasing blunt trauma protection. Even composites of two or more
different ballistic materials are available. As a consequence, it is
impossible to compare one product with another based solely on the
number of fabric layers in the protective panel.

The manner in which the ballistic- or stab-resistant panels are assembled
into a single unit also differs from one manufacturer to another. In some
cases, the multiple layers are bias stitched around the entire edge of the
panel; in others, the layers are tack stitched together at several locations.
Some manufacturers assemble the fabrics with a number of rows of
vertical or horizontal stitching; some may even quilt the entire panel. No
evidence exists that stitching impairs the ballistic- or stab-resistant
properties of a panel. Instead, stitching tends to improve the overall
performance, especially in cases of blunt trauma, depending on the type of
fabric used.

The differences between protective panels in various manufacturers'
products result from individual design concepts meant to achieve a given
level of performance with minimum weight and maximum comfort or
wearability. If armor has been demonstrated to provide the desired level of
protection in accordance with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
standards, the user should not be concerned with the design, but should
look for proper fit and comfort.

Body armor intended for routine use is most often designed to be worn
beneath the normal uniform shirt. Again, manufacturers tend to design
different methods of attaching armor to the body. Hook-and-pile fasteners
are common, as are "D" ring tightening straps. With the exception of metal
fasteners of any type (which can deflect a bullet on impact and pose a
hazard), the method of attachment is a matter of personal preference.

Since 1987, the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center (NLECTC) has tested more than 2,600 models of body armor for
compliance with NIJ's ballistic-resistant performance standard. Of these,
more than 1,600 comply with the requirements of the NIJ standard and are
listed in the Personal Body Armor Consumer Product List (CPL),
available from NLECTC. Testing for compliance with NIJ's stab- and
puncture-resistant performance standard began in October 2000. The
number of body armor configurations available (including armor designed
specifically for female officers) makes it possible for an officer to find
comfortable armor suitable for routine use, consistent with his or her
personal taste in appearance.

Model and Style Designation

A manufacturer can, and frequently does, use identical ballistic- or
stab-resistant panel construction to produce several different
configurations of armor, such as an undergarment or an outerwear jacket
used by plainclothes officers (e.g., denim jacket, simulated down vest),
each of which provides the same level of protection.

For the purposes of the NLECTC body armor compliance procedures, the
following definitions have been adopted:

Body armor model. A manufacturer designation (name, number, or other
description) that serves to uniquely identify a specific configuration of
body armor based on the details of the protective panel construction and
the manner in which the armor is held in place on the torso. Separate
model designations must be assigned to armor designed to fit the female
and male torso.

Body armor style. A manufacturer designation (name, number, or other
description) that is used to distinguish between different configurations of
body armor product line, each of which is a minor stylistic variation of the
same model of ballistic panel but does not have the potential to negatively
affect the originally tested ballistic performance level of that model (e.g.,
the shape of the neckline, coverage, the size of the armhole openings, etc.).

The distinctions between body armor model and style were established to
eliminate the need to retest a given body armor model for compliance with
the NIJ standards each time a manufacturer incorporates the model into a
different style of armor.

The intent of the NIJ program is to ensure that armor purchased for use by
criminal justice personnel provides the rated level of protection. However,
NIJ recognizes that individual departments often desire minor armor
model modifications that do not have the potential to reduce the level of
protection. There are a number of variations in configuration that a
manufacturer can make to a model without the necessity of assigning a
new model number to the modified units. These include:

1) Changes in color of the carrier material.

2) Changes in the placement of pockets or of straps designed to carry
police equipment.

3) Changes in fabric used to encase ballistic panels; provided, however,
that if the fabric used in the model tested for compliance was waterproof,
the replacement fabric must exhibit equal or improved resistance to water.

4) Changes in the fabric of the carrier material; provided, however, that if
any portion of the carrier of the sample tested for compliance contained
elastic materials such as rubber or foam rubber, the replacement fabric
must provide an equivalent amount and thickness of such material to
maintain the original energy absorption.

5) Changes in the perimeter shape of the ballistic panels, including the
shape and size of neck and arm openings, and extending or reducing the
overall width of the ballistic panels to increase, decrease, or eliminate
overlap of the ballistic panels.

6) Changes to the kind, style, or location of fabric attachment and
adjustment mechanisms; provided, however, that such changes do not
incorporate hard materials that could potentially be a ricochet hazard.

7) Changing from a removable panel carrier to one in which the ballistic
panel is not removable.

The manufacturer must assign a new model number and submit the new
model for compliance testing if any of the following modifications are
made to a model on the CPL:

1) The addition or elimination of any layers of ballistic- or stab-resistant
materials of the protective panel resulting in a different number of total
layers in the panel.

2) Any alteration or changes to the sequence in which the layers are
arranged or configured within the ballistic panel for vests consisting of
multiple styles or types of materials.

3) Any change in the manner in which the ballistic panel is assembled
(e.g., the addition or elimination of stitching and changes in stitch density
or material).

4) Modification of an approved side-opening (solid front/back panels) of
the concealable vest to create a front- or back-opening (commonly referred
to as "tactical" or "detective" style) vest.

5) Changing from a permanent/nonremovable carrier to a removable
ballistic carrier.

6) Changes to the closure mechanism (including the type or location,
interior flaps or panels associated with the mechanism, and any exterior
cover device) of front- or back-opening armor configurations.

7) Changing from a snug-fitting carrier to one that allows too much
movement of the ballistic panel (e.g., ballistic panel sized to fit 38-inch
chest inserted in a size-40 carrier).

Modifications not specifically addressed in these guidelines will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis and a determination will be rendered by
NIJ. In all cases, the originally tested and archived vest will serve as the
benchmark to determine if a change has occurred.

Once a model of armor has been tested and approved, and a letter of
compliance has been issued by NLECTC, it becomes the responsibility of
the manufacturer to ensure that all subsequent production units sold to law
enforcement agencies or personnel labeled as being in compliance with
NIJ standards are constructed identically to the model submitted to
NLECTC for testing and which was found to comply with the
requirements of the standards.

ISO 9000

Several armor manufacturers advertise that their companies have obtained
ISO 9000 certification. Some confusion exists as to what this certification
means and its relationship to NIJ compliance testing. The following
explains ISO 9000 and its significance to purchasers.

ISO stands for the International Organization for Standardization. Founded
in 1946, its charter calls for it to provide harmonized standards for
manufacturing quality that are to be used throughout the world. Through
the years, ISO's role has expanded beyond the quality system into
environmental issues, occupational health and safety, laboratory
accreditations, and conformity assessment. Approximately 110 countries
participate in ISO standards programs. International standards are prepared
through the efforts of technical committees, working groups, and technical
advisory groups.

ISO 9000 defines minimum guidelines for quality management in the
manufacturing process. This voluntary certification process is designed to
provide consistency in the manufacturing process that companies use.
Companies are required to have a documented quality control system and
their employees must follow these established procedures.

The three quality objectives of ISO 9000 are as follows:

o Achieve and sustain the quality of service so as to meet customer
requirements consistently.

o Provide assurance to management that intended quality is achieved and
sustained.

o Provide assurance to customers that intended quality is being achieved
and sustained.

ISO 9000 has three levels of certification. The basic level, ISO 9003, has
16 requirements. The next level, ISO 9002, requires companies to meet all
ISO 9003 requirements, plus servicing, process control, and purchasing
requirements. The highest level, ISO 9001, requires companies to meet all
the ISO 9002 requirements, as well as documented product design control
requirements.

It is important to note that the ISO 9000 certification process certifies the
quality control system of companies, not the quality of their products or
service. ISO 9000 certification does not imply product conformity to any
given set of requirements (such as the NIJ standards). Therefore, a clear
and significant distinction exists between manufacturers that are ISO
certified and whether their products comply with the NIJ standards. ISO
certification addresses the quality of the manufacturing process used by
armor manufacturers, while the NIJ standards address the performance
capabilities of specific models of armor produced by manufacturers.

Materials Used

Note: The following information has been prepared from product literature
supplied by the manufacturer. All product descriptions and performance
claims are the manufacturer's and do not represent findings or endorsement
of these claims by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of
Justice; Office of Law Enforcement Standards, U.S. Department of
Commerce; or Aspen Systems Corporation.

Several manufacturers have been involved in developing and refining
materials used in body armor. DuPont has developed law enforcement
protection products for more than 25 years. Its Kevlar[registered
trademark] brand fiber, first developed in 1965, was the first material
identified for use in the modern generation of concealable body armor.
Kevlar[registered trademark] is a manmade organic fiber, with a
combination of properties allowing for high strength with low weight,
high chemical resistance, and high cut resistance. Kevlar[registered
trademark] is also flame resistant; does not melt, soften, or flow; and the
fiber is unaffected by immersion in water (see the wet testing discussion in
chapter 6 on page 36).

Kevlar[registered trademark] 29, introduced in the early 1970s, was the
first generation of bullet-resistant fibers developed by DuPont and helped
to make the production of flexible, concealable body armor practical for
the first time. In 1988, DuPont introduced the second generation of
Kevlar[registered trademark] fiber, known as Kevlar[registered trademark]
129. According to DuPont, this fabric offered increased ballistic protection
capabilities against high-energy rounds such as the 9mm full metal jacket
(FMJ). In 1995, Kevlar[registered trademark] Correctional[trademark]
was introduced, which provides puncture-resistant technology to both law
enforcement and correctional officers against puncture-type threats.

The newest addition to the Kevlar[registered trademark] line is
Kevlar[registered trademark] Protera, which DuPont made available in
1996. DuPont contends that the Kevlar[registered trademark] Protera is a
high-performance fabric that allows lighter weight, more flexibility, and
greater ballistic protection in a vest design due to the molecular structure
of the fiber. Its tensile strength and energy-absorbing capabilities have
been increased by the development of a new spinning process.

DuPont Kevlar[registered trademark] continues to develop and design new
generations of high-performance solutions and innovations to provide
multithreat protection to officers in the criminal justice community. This
patented multithreat technology will enable the creation of armor that
protects against firearms, commercially manufactured knives, and
puncture-producing weapons like ice picks.

Spectra[registered trademark] fiber, manufactured by Honeywell, is an
ultra-high-strength polyethylene fiber. Ultra high molecular weight
polyethylene is dissolved in a solvent and spun through a series of small
orifices, called spinnerets. This solution is solidified by cooling, and the
cooled fiber has a gel-like appearance. Spectra[registered trademark] fiber,
which Honeywell claims is the highest strength-to-weight fiber in the
world, is resistant to water penetration, has extremely high chemical
resistance and very high cut resistance properties. Honeywell uses its
Spectra[registered trademark] fiber to make its patented Spectra
Shield[registered trademark] composite. A layer of Spectra
Shield[registered trademark] composite consists of two unidirectional
layers of Spectra[registered trademark] fiber, arranged to cross each other
at 0- and 90-degree angles and held in place by a flexible resin. Both the
fiber and resin layers are sealed between two thin sheets of polyethylene
film. According to Honeywell, the resulting nonwoven fabric is incredibly
strong, lightweight, flexible, and has excellent ballistic protection
capabilities. Spectra Shield[registered trademark] is made in a variety of
styles for use in both concealable and hard armor applications.

Honeywell also uses the Shield Technology process to manufacture
another type of shield composite called GoldFlex[registered trademark].
GoldFlex[registered trademark] is manufactured using aramid fibers in
place of the Spectra fiber. GoldFlex[registered trademark], Spectra
Shield[registered trademark], and Spectra[registered trademark] fabrics
offer body armor manufacturers an array of products to meet today's
demanding and changing threats.

Another manufacturer, Twaron Products, has developed various forms of
its aramid fiber Twaron[registered trademark] for body armor. According
to Twaron, this fiber uses 1,000 or more finely spun single filaments that
act as an energy sponge, absorbing a bullet's impact and quickly
dissipating its energy through engaged and adjacent fibers. Because more
filaments are used, the impact is dispersed more quickly. Twaron claims
their patented Microfilament technology allows maximum energy
absorption at minimum weights while enhancing comfort and flexibility.

Twaron Products maintains that the use of Twaron[registered trademark]
in body armor significantly reduces the overall weight of the finished
product, thus making vests more comfortable. Twaron Products continues
to develop and manufacture lighter weight yarns with finer filaments,
expanding their patented Microfilament product line.

Another fiber used to manufacture body armor is Dyneema[registered
trademark]. Originated in the Netherlands, Dyneema[registered trademark]
has an extremely high strength-to-weight ratio (a 1-mm-diameter rope of
Dyneema[registered trademark] can bear up to a 240-kg load), is light
enough that it can float on water, and has high energy absorption
characteristics.

Zylon[registered trademark], manufactured by Japanese company,
Toyobo, is a PBO (polyphehylenebenzobisoxazole), a promising new
entrant to the high-performance organic fibers market. PBO has
outstanding thermal properties and almost twice the tensile strength of
conventional para-aramid fibers. According to Toyobo, Zylon[registered
trademark] will allow construction of comfortable protective garments
because its excellent heat- and mechanical-resistant properties will provide
light and flexible fabrics with improved comfort and mobility.

All fibers and materials noted in this chapter have a wide variety of uses in
addition to ballistic garments. They are used for other types of protective
clothing and equipment (e.g., bicycle and skateboarding helmets), marine
and aircraft components, industrial cables, and recreational equipment
such as fishing rods and tennis rackets. The materials described are some
of the most commonly used; other materials (e.g., ballistic nylon) can also
be used.

The introduction of newer, high-performance fibers has dramatically
decreased the weight and bulk of today's body armor and increased its
comfort and wearability. It can be anticipated that newer materials will be
developed and in conjunction with further advances in ballistic vest
design, technology will continue to enhance the performance and comfort
of tomorrow's body armor.

--------------------------------

5. The NIJ Standards

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards for Ballistic Resistance of
Personal Body Armor and Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor were
developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST's) Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) and issued by NIJ
as voluntary national standards. These are performance rather than design
standards, as are most OLES standards. Performance standards clearly
specify a minimum satisfactory level of performance for each attribute that
is critical to the equipment's intended use. In contrast, design standards
specify the manner in which an item of equipment must be manufactured.
Performance standards encourage design innovation and the use of
advanced technology, addressing critical requirements only and not such
attributes as comfort, color, or style--which are generally matters of user
perception or preference.

The administrative procedures for NIJ's body armor compliance-testing
program, which is administered by the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), are designed to ensure the
integrity of the test results. A series of pre- and post-test checks and
balances ensure the laboratory's conformance to the NIJ testing procedure.
When a manufacturer elects to have a model of armor tested, the test
samples are delivered to NLECTC, where the labels and workmanship are
inspected before the samples are given to an independent laboratory for
testing. A 2-week period is allocated to accomplish the control function
before the scheduled testing date. Following testing, the samples are
returned to NLECTC, where test results are verified. The tested samples
are then archived.

The NIJ body armor testing program relies on voluntary participation by
manufacturers. However, many police departments require that armor be
tested by NLECTC and found in compliance with NIJ standards before
they purchase the armor. As a result, most manufacturers design their
armor to comply with the standards and have each model tested for
compliance by NLECTC. Whenever NIJ develops a new standard,
NLECTC distributes the revision to industry representatives for their
comments.

Developing the NIJ Standard for Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor

The selection of body armor has become increasingly complex as
manufacturers have developed numerous models and designs, the variety
of ballistic fabric styles has increased, and the protection requirements of
police agencies have changed. All of these factors have necessitated
changes in the NIJ body armor standard.

NIJ's first standard, 0101.00, Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor,
was published in March 1972 in response to the law enforcement
community's request for a benchmark against which to measure competing
manufacturer claims. This first standard provided requirements only for
resistance to actual penetration of the vest by a bullet and defined only
three levels of protection from various threats. The issue of whether the
armor could prevent injury from blunt trauma was not addressed.

In 1975, NIJ requested that the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory
(LESL), the predecessor to OLES, begin revision of the first standard to
reflect contemporary research on blunt trauma and the degradation of
armor when wet. A revised standard, STD-0101.01,[13] was published in
December 1978 to introduce the backface signature test for blunt trauma
and wet testing.

At approximately the same time, the law enforcement community asked
NIJ to establish an equipment testing program to provide independent
verification of body armor compliance to the NIJ standard. NIJ entered
into a cooperative agreement with the International Association of Chiefs
of Police (IACP) to conduct the testing. The first results were published in
1978. Since then, the models and the names of their manufacturers that
pass compliance testing have been published in the Police Body Armor
Consumer Product List, now known as the Personal Body Armor
Consumer Product List (CPL), which since 1999 has been available
electronically through the NLECTC Web site, JUSTNET, at
http://www.justnet.org. NLECTC also publishes other documents and
guides, such as this one, to help police departments select and procure
body armor.

In March 1985, NIJ amended the standard, issuing STD-0101.02, to take
into account armors' susceptibility to angle shots and multishot assaults.
NIJ STD-0101.02 also introduced threat level III-A, the highest protection
level in concealable armor, in response to concerns from the law
enforcement community about the need for protection from high-velocity
and high-energy handgun rounds such as the submachine gun 9mm and
.44 Magnum.[14] Published in April 1987, STD-0101.03 clarified labeling
requirements, acceptance criteria, and backface signature measurement
procedures.[15] NIJ also strengthened its administrative procedures for
archiving models.

The Current Standard, NIJ Standard-0101.04

In September 2000, NIJ issued Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body
Armor, NIJ Standard-0101.04[16] the first revision in 13 years. There
were a number of reasons for the revision. Since 1987, when the 0101.03
standard was adopted, there have been many changes in the design,
manufacturing, and use of body armor. The ammunition and weapons
threats that police officers face are different. Most officers today use
autoloading pistols as their duty weapon instead of revolvers. Design
technology used in making the vests has changed significantly, and new
ballistic-resistant materials have been introduced. Administrative changes
added to the NIJ standard over time have also made it unduly cumbersome
for laboratory test personnel to administer the test. The revised standard
reflects the changes in threats and designs and incorporates and
streamlines the administrative changes. Testing under the revised standard
was initiated in fall 2000.

The new 0101.04 standard represents a significant step toward ensuring
consistent, well-documented testing of body under NIJ's program. The
main intent of the revision was to incorporate as many of the lessons
learned from the long period of 0101.03 testing experience as possible,
particularly in regard to clarification and definition of many of the
methods and equipment used to test body armor for NIJ compliance.

In addition to the introduction of new test threat rounds, the new standard
reinstates the "pat down" procedure or the smoothing of the armor panel
between shots, which was performed in NIJ Standard-0101.02 and
previous editions, and an increase from one to two measurements per
panel for backface signature. The techniques and equipment for wet
conditioning of the test armor, construction of the backing material fixture,
and firing the test threat ammunition also have been updated and revised.
A single, highly automated, computer-based reporting format and
comprehensive database archival system will standardize reports, making
testing data more manageable and accessible to users.

Introducing Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-
0115.00

While the most common type of threat faced by a police officers is from a
gun, the most common threat a correctional officer is likely to face is from
a knife or ice pick. In response to the needs of the corrections community,
NIJ has developed a performance standard for stab- and puncture-resistant
body armor through a collaboration of OLES, the U.S. Secret Service, and
the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) in the United Kingdom
(UK). Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, NIJ Standard-0115.00[17]
was released in October 2000.

This standard specifies the minimum performance requirements for body
armor that is resistant to attack by typical pointed and edged weapons. The
standard also describes the test methodology to be used for this
assessment.

In developing the standard, NIJ relied on the extensive research experience
of PSDB in the UK, where the primary threat to law enforcement officers
is from sharp-edged and pointed weapons. As part of their initial research,
PSDB created a model to determine the actual forces generated by an
assailant during attack, and, from this model, developed realistic test
methodologies and procedures that could be replicated in the laboratory.
Several different types of blades were engineered to accurately reflect
actual threats faced by law enforcement and correctional officers.
Although these blades are specially designed to ensure consistency in
testing procedures, they reflect many of the features found in the
high-grade commercial knives or homemade instruments most commonly
used in attacks.

The threats from ice picks and lower quality, prison-made knives and
shivs are much more difficult to quantify than those from commercial
knives. Research addressing homemade instruments continues, and any
improvements from this research will be incorporated into future revisions
of NIJ Standard-0115.00. For the present time, the same test methodology
will be used for homemade weapons as is used for commercial knives, but
the threat weapon is a modified ice pick commonly used in the "California
Ice Pick" test. A more complete discussion of the testing procedures,
protection classes, and threat levels can be found in chapter 7.

This standard and the revised standard for ballistic-resistant body armor
were circulated for review among the membership of the Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC),
LECTAC's Weapons and Protective Systems Subcommittee, LECTAC's
Executive Committee, and the National Armor Advisory Board (NAAB).
NAAB is made up of law enforcement officers and body armor industry
representatives, including fiber and fabric manufacturers, weavers, and
armor manufacturers.

NIJ's policy on body armor has always been that preserving the life of the
police or corrections officer is the sole criterion on which to judge body
armor effectiveness. At present, an officer may select a garment that
corresponds to an appropriate threat level and be confident that armor in
compliance with NIJ's standard will defeat the stated threat level.

Cooperative Efforts Between NLECTC and Industry

To further enhance its mission to support State and local law enforcement
and corrections by identifying their needs, finding expedient and
cost-effective solutions, and bringing those solutions to the attention of the
law enforcement and corrections community, NIJ has developed a new
cooperative effort between NLECTC and the body armor industry. The
existing NLECTC program structure accomplishes this by refining the
process for developing policy and by reviewing standards (see exhibit 3).

Key organizational components of NLECTC's policy development process
are NIJ, LECTAC, NLECTC, OLES, LECTAC's technical subcommittees,
and the testing laboratories. Industry's role has been formalized through
the introduction of advisory boards, whose functions are included below.

NIJ. The Institute funds and manages all the activities of NLECTC,
resolves disputes and appeals, conducts needs assessments, and
coordinates input from the criminal justice system.

LECTAC. A key element in the policy and standards development
process, LECTAC is composed of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement and corrections professionals who are appointed by NLECTC
with the approval of the LECTAC Executive Committee. LECTAC meets
at least annually, and its chairperson keeps in close contact with NIJ and
NLECTC throughout the year. The advisory council:

o Identifies critical product and technology needs of the criminal justice
community.

o Recommends priorities and methods that form the basis from which
standards and policies are developed.

o Assesses law enforcement and corrections equipment issues, including
suggesting research and development priorities.

o Suggests equipment to be tested and recommends the development of
guides, bulletins, and other program publications.

o Strengthens links between NIJ and the criminal justice community.

LECTAC subcommittees. LECTAC's subcommittees report to the full
council and meet on an as-needed basis. Subcommittees are formed to
address major areas of technology research and development such as law
enforcement and corrections operations, weapons and protective systems,
communications, and contraband detection, among others. The chair of a
subcommittee also serves as or appoints the chair of any advisory board
assigned to that subcommittee.

NLECTC. NLECTC coordinates the testing of all equipment under the
program and fields requests for information and technical assistance from
law enforcement and corrections agencies. The criminal justice
community looks to NLECTC for authoritative information on the latest
technology and products. NLECTC:

o Coordinates equipment testing activities and collects results from
laboratories.

o Publishes consumer product lists of products that comply with NIJ
standards.

o Operates a toll-free information service and Internet site.

o Archives tested products.

o Issues publications on equipment and standards.

o Provides technical assistance to the criminal justice community.

o Serves as a resource to LECTAC and the advisory boards.

OLES. Funded by NIJ through an interagency agreement, OLES is part of
NIST. As NIJ's principal agent for setting standards on law enforcement
equipment, OLES:

o Conducts technical studies.

o Develops initial standards for testing and provides scientific and
technical support to the technical committees and advisory boards.

o Provides technical assistance to criminal justice agencies.

o Evaluates and monitors testing laboratories.

Testing laboratories. Independent testing laboratories are evaluated by
OLES and subsequently authorized by NLECTC to conduct testing of
manufacturers' products in accordance with NIJ standards. Each product is
tested before appearing in a Personal Body Armor CPL. The testing itself
is contracted between the manufacturer and the laboratory, but the
equipment must be submitted through NLECTC. Once a performance
assurance program has been developed, laboratories selected by NLECTC
to test body armor will be required to provide the manufacturers with a
followup performance assurance program.

Advisory boards. Composed of industry and user representatives,
NLECTC intends to establish advisory boards for each major
equipment/technology focus that will report to the respective technical
subcommittees of LECTAC. The boards will provide an opportunity for
the industry and users to meet directly with LECTAC technical
subcommittees. Currently, NAAB is the only advisory board that has been
formed. It is composed of body armor manufacturers, fiber and fabric
manufacturers, law enforcement management, and rank-and-file
representatives from law enforcement. Board members review standards
and policy and recommend revisions to the Weapons and Protective
Systems Subcommittee of LECTAC. All advisory boards will recommend
actions concerning possible modifications of NIJ standards. If an advisory
board endorses a recommendation to their respective subcommittee, it will
be referred to LECTAC for its full endorsement.

The Standards Review Process

With advice from NAAB, NLECTC, and the Weapons and Protective
Systems Subcommittee of LECTAC, NIJ has formalized a process for
accommodating changes to the existing body armor standard. In this
revised process, shown in exhibit 4, a suggestion for a change in the
standard is submitted to NLECTC. NLECTC then conducts an immediate
review to ensure that the suggestion is intelligible, relevant to the
equipment in question, and has not been considered previously.

If the suggestion passes this review, copies are forwarded to the Weapons
and Protective Systems Subcommittee and NAAB. If the suggestion has
technical merit and is feasible, the subcommittee directs NLECTC to
publish the suggestion and to solicit comments from the field. NLECTC
also circulates the suggested change to NIJ, LECTAC, and OLES for
review.

Comments from the field regarding the recommendations are provided to
NLECTC in a specified number of copies. Copies are also provided by the
commenter directly to the person or organization who made the
suggestion. NLECTC forwards the comments, along with its
recommendations regarding the comments, to NIJ, OLES, the Weapons
and Protective System Subcommittee, and NAAB for review. The
subcommittee then makes a final recommendation to LECTAC, which
passes it on to NIJ. NIJ and the Office of General Counsel review the
recommendation to ensure that it fully complies with the law and relevant
policy. If it does, NLECTC publishes the decision and the effective date of
the change.

The following options are available to the reviewers when they consider a
suggestion:

o Accept the suggestion as offered.

o Accept the suggestion with modifications.

o Refer the suggestion for further research.

o Reject the suggestion because it was improperly submitted, previously
rejected, irrelevant, or not feasible.

Suggestions are processed at least annually. If a suggestion is rejected, an
explanation is provided. NIJ does not consider revising the standard unless
supporting research is presented, nor does NIJ change the standard without
comments from law enforcement and the body armor industry. If NIJ errs,
it is on the side of the user. The standards review process is similar for
other equipment standards.

NIJ's responsiveness to law enforcement and industry concerns is evident
in recent changes in the program. These changes include strengthening the
program's management and policy structure, creating a process for
modifying standards, inviting industry representatives to participate in the
standards review process, and sending letters to manufacturers to clarify
the responsibilities of those who choose to participate in the body armor
program. (This last step is to prevent confusion and misunderstandings
that might develop in the use of the NIJ standard and testing program for
manufacturers' product advertising and marketing.)

NIJ is proud of the partnership it is forging among government, industry,
and the Nation's police and corrections officers. Like all partnerships, the
one between NIJ and body armor manufacturers must be based on mutual
rights and responsibilities. In return for permission to use the NIJ label,
NIJ also asks manufacturers to take responsibility for the safety of their
products that are sold to law enforcement officers. Reciprocally, NIJ is
committed to working with the manufacturers to adjust the standards and
testing program to accommodate the needs and technological
advancements of the body armor industry.

--------------------------------

6. Ballistic-Resistant Personal Body Armor

Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection

The first step in selecting the appropriate protection level of body armor is
to establish the level of protection that users need based on the realistic
weapon threat they face. To date, body armor has not been known to fail to
prevent the penetration of a bullet constituting a threat equal to or less than
the protection rating of the armor. However, officers have died from
wounds received from weapons or ammunition exceeding the rated
protection of the armor. While 100-percent protection in all circumstances
is impossible, the routine use of appropriate body armor significantly
reduces the likelihood of fatal injury. Body armor selection is to some
extent a tradeoff between ballistic protection and wearability. The weight
and bulk of body armor are generally proportional to the level of ballistic
protection it provides; therefore, comfort decreases as the protection level
increases. All departments should strive to select body armor that their
officers will wear, consistent with their ballistic protection requirements.
Agencies should ensure that each officer knows and understands the
protection that it affords, as well as its limitations.

The weapons and ammunition commonly found on the street may vary
significantly with geographic location. Therefore, information concerning
weapons and ammunition that are confiscated in both the local jurisdiction
and nearby surrounding areas must be considered, as well as statistics
concerning gun sales by local firearms dealers. Such data will permit an
assessment of the current threat from street weapons. The National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) strongly recommends the selection of an armor
that protects against both the street threat and the officer's handgun. A
review of reports on officers killed during the period from 1980 to 2000
shows that 163 of the 1,058 officers killed with a handgun, or on average
one in six officers, was killed with his or her own service weapon.

Information from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Law Enforcement
Officers Killed and Assaulted[18] provides some insight into the overall
threat to officers nationwide. Statistics based on the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI's) UCR data reveal that from 1990 to 1999, 658 law
enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty (see exhibit
5). Of these, 610 (92.7 percent) were killed by firearms--466 (71 percent)
by handguns, 112 (17 percent) by rifles, 32 (4.9 percent) by shotguns--and
48 (7 percent) by other types of weapons. These other weapons included
knives (10 fatalities); bombs (11, 8 of which occurred in a single incident--
the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City);
personal weapons (5); and automobiles and other fatal means not usually
thought of as weapons (22).

Of the 466 deaths from handguns, between 1990 and 1999, 9mm handguns
or lesser handguns were used in 311 (66.7 percent) of the cases.

The "Takeaway" Problem

Another consideration in determining the appropriate threat level is the
type of service weapon and ammunition used by the department. In
reviewing the UCR data for the time period of 1980 to 1999, a total of 163
deaths, or 15.4 percent of deaths from handguns, resulted from officers
being shot with their own service weapon (see exhibit 6). In these 163
cases, no documented incidents occurred of a round from the officer's
service weapon penetrating the officer's body armor and causing the fatal
injury.

A dramatic decline has occurred in the number of officers slain with their
own weapons in the 1990s. For the period from 1980 to 1989, an average
of 11.2 officers were slain annually with their own weapons; from 1990 to
1999, the average decreased to 5.2 officers. This decrease can most likely
be attributed to several factors, including increased officer awareness of
the problem, expanded use of body armor, enhanced officer safety and
weapon retention training, and the emergence of holsters designed with
security or antitakeaway features. However, officers should still be
cognizant of the potential danger posed by their own sidearms, should
these be used against them. Generally speaking, Type II-A and Type II
armor provide protection against most types of handgun ammunition
commonly used by law enforcement agencies today.

In analyzing potential weapon threats, a given police department will
probably identify several threat levels, depending on the nature of specific
assignments. Specialized armor will be required for special weapons and
tactics team operations, but these armors will only be issued and used as
needed. As noted earlier, armor that provides protection against high-level
threats is generally heavy and bulky and therefore can be unsuitable for
full-time use.

A department should avoid the temptation to purchase armor that provides
protection far in excess of realistic needs. Such a purchase not only
increases the cost, but increases the likelihood that the armor will not be
worn. Overspecification of protection levels has been alleged as the most
common reason that armor is not worn.

Recognizing that it may not be practical to protect against all possible
handgun attacks, a department must carefully consider the selection of
armor appropriate to its needs. In the final analysis, those responsible for
selecting the level of protection for armor to be used routinely must
exercise prudent judgment and decide whether the overall benefits of
limited protection (purchasing a less protective armor type than the
maximum level of protection indicated by threat analysis) outweigh the
complete loss of protection if the armor is not worn.

The Corrections Threat

While the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Law Enforcement Officers Killed
and Assaulted (LEOKA) provides detailed insight into the nature and
types of assaults on police officers, there are no comparable statistics
currently maintained for assaults on corrections officers. However, the
statistics that are available indicate that the threat of assault is a common
danger for corrections officers as well.

According to data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),
between 1990 and 1997 the number of inmates in State and Federal
custody has increased by a total of 434,000, or an average annual growth
rate of 6.8 percent.[19] There was a one-third increase in the number of
assaults by inmates on corrections facility staff between 1990 and 1995. In
1990, there were 10,731 reported assaults by inmates on corrections
facility staff; in 1995, there were 14,165 reported assaults. The nature of
the assaults has become more severe as well. In 1990, none of the reported
assaults resulted in the death of the staff member who was assaulted. By
comparison, in 1995, 14 staff members were killed as a result of the
assault.[20]

While the threat faced by the police officer is most frequently from
firearms, a corrections officer faces an entirely different variety of threats.
Because corrections officers are rarely equipped with firearms, and it is
extremely rare for an inmate to obtain a firearm within a correctional
facility, the most common threat faced is from pointed- and sharp-edged
weapons. Most of these are homemade or improvised weapons, made from
scraps of metal obtained through a variety of sources in the corrections
environment.

While these threats are different from firearms, they are equally capable of
inflicting serious or fatal injuries. Until recently, many protective garments
designed for use against corrections threats were much heavier and bulkier
than the ballistic-resistant counterparts worn by police officers, as
materials technology generally did not allow for a protective vest for
corrections applications to be made entirely of woven materials. Quite
frequently, these vests incorporated thin sheets of metal and other types of
hard plating to protect against typical corrections threats. However, in
recent years significant breakthroughs in materials technology have made
it possible for corrections officers to have access to stab- and
puncture-resistant vests that are similar in weight and bulk to the
ballistic-resistant vests worn by their police counterparts. It is anticipated
that as these vests become more commonplace in the corrections
workplace, corrections officer fatalities will decrease as police officer
fatalities decreased after the introduction of ballistic-resistant armor in the
mid- to late 1970s.

Armor Classifications for Ballistic-Resistant Armor

NIJ Standard-0101.04 establishes six formal armor classification types, as
well as a seventh special type, as follows:

Type I (.22 LR; .380 ACP). This armor protects against .22 long rifle lead
round nose (LR LRN) bullets, with nominal masses of 2.6 g (40 gr),
impacting at a minimum velocity of 320 m/s (1050 ft/s) or less, and
against .380 ACP full metal jacketed round nose (FMJ RN), with nominal
masses of 6.2 g (95 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s
(1025 ft/s) or less.

Type I body armor is light. This is the minimum level of protection every
officer should have, and the armor should be routinely worn at all times
while on duty. Type I body armor was the armor issued during the NIJ
demonstration project in the mid-1970s. Most agencies today, however,
because of increasing threats, opt for a higher level of protection.

Type II-A (9mm; .40 S&W). This armor protects against 9mm full metal
jacketed round nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124
gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 332 m/s (1090 ft/s) or less, and
.40 S&W caliber full metal jacketed (FMJ) bullets, with nominal masses
of 11.7 g (180 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s (1025 ft/s)
or less. It also provides protection against Type I threats.

Type II-A body armor is well suited for full-time use by police
departments, particularly those seeking protection for their officers from
lower velocity 9mm and 40 S&W ammunition.

Type II (9mm; .357 Magnum). This armor protects against 9mm full metal
jacketed round nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124
gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 358 m/s (1175 ft/s) or less, and
.357 Magnum jacketed soft point (JSP) bullets, with nominal masses of
10.2 g (158 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 427 m/s (1400 ft/s) or
less. It also provides protection against Type I and Type IIA threats.

Type II body armor is heavier and more bulky than either Types I or II-A.
It is worn full time by officers seeking protection against higher velocity
.357 Magnum and 9mm ammunition.

Type III-A (High Velocity 9mm; .44 Magnum). This armor protects
against 9mm full metal jacketed round nose (FJM RN) bullets, with
nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 427
m/s (1400 ft/s) or less, and .44 Magnum jacketed hollow point (JHP)
bullets, with nominal masses of 15.6 g (240 gr), impacting at a minimum
velocity of 427 m/s (1400 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against
most handgun threats, as well as the Type I, II-A, and II threats.

Type III-A body armor provides the highest level of protection currently
available from concealable body armor and is generally suitable for
routine wear in many situations. However, departments located in hot,
humid climates may need to evaluate the use of Type III-A armor
carefully.

Type III (Rifles). This armor protects against 7.62mm full metal jacketed
(FMJ) bullets (U.S. military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.6
g (148 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 838 m/s (2750 ft/s) or less.
It also provides protection against Type I through III-A threats.

Type III body armor is clearly intended only for tactical situations when
the threat warrants such protection, such as barricade confrontations
involving sporting rifles.

Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle). This armor protects against .30 caliber
armor piercing (AP) bullets (U.S. military designation M2 AP), with
nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of
869 m/s (2850 ft/s) or less. It also provides at least single-hit protection
against the Type I through III threats.

Type IV body armor provides the highest level of protection currently
available. Because this armor is intended to resist "armor piercing" bullets,
it often uses ceramic materials. Such materials are brittle in nature and
may provide only single-shot protection, since the ceramic tends to break
up when struck. As with Type III armor, Type IV armor is clearly intended
only for tactical situations when the threat warrants such protection.

Special type. A purchaser who has a special requirement for a level of
protection other than one of the above standard threat levels should specify
the exact test rounds and minimum impact velocities to be used and
indicate that this standard shall govern in all other respects.

Requirements

The performance requirements of NIJ Standard-0101.04, which were
developed with the active participation of body armor manufacturers,
ensure that each armor type will provide a well-defined minimum level of
ballistic protection.

Exhibit 7, reproduced from the standard, identifies the specific bullets and
impact velocities that each armor type must withstand.

Types I, II-A, II, and III-A armor are required to prevent penetration from
the impact of six bullets per panel, for two complete samples (front and
back panels) at specified velocities and locations for two types of
ammunition. Two of the impacts in each six-shot sequence must be at a
30-degree angle. A total of 48 shots are completed on four samples.
Furthermore, the deformation of the backing material (a measure of blunt
trauma protection) must not exceed 44mm (1.73 in). Deformation readings
are taken on each panel at shot location 1, then at either shot location 2 or
3, whichever one had the highest shot velocity. The armor must meet these
requirements while wet.

Type III armor requirements are identical to those above, except that only
one type of ammunition is specified, and all six test rounds are fired
perpendicular to the surface of the armor. A total of 12 shots are
completed (6 shots per sample).

Type IV armor is required to resist penetration from only a single type of
ammunition (armor piercing) and is only required to prevent penetration
and backface deformation greater than 44mm (1.73 in) from a single
perpendicular impact. A total of two samples are tested.

In addition to the ballistic requirements, the NIJ standard requires quality
workmanship and specifies the minimum information that must be
included on the armor's label. The maximum allowable deformation of the
clay-backing material was determined through an extensive series of
ballistic gelatin measurements and experiments conducted by a team of
medical experts. This limit ensures protection from blunt trauma that
arises from an impact occurring over vital locations. Even this level of
protection, however, does not give an absolute guarantee of protection
against internal injuries.

The rationale for the requirement that armor resist bullet penetration is
obvious. The reasons for other ballistic requirements may not be apparent.

Wet testing. Certain ballistic fab