F irearms are one of the leading causes of deaths for law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty. Since FY1999, Congress has provided funding to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to help them purchase armor vests for their officers through the Matching Grant Program for Law Enforcement Armor Vests (also referred to as the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Initiative, hereinafter "the BPV program"). 105-181 ). The BPV program provides grants to state, local, and tribal governments to help purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers and court officers. Current law also allows the BJA to give preferential consideration to law enforcement agencies applying for grants under the following circumstances:
the agency has the greatest need for armor vests based on the percentage of law enforcement officers in the department who do not have access to a vest; the agency has, or will institute, a mandatory wear policy that requires on-duty law enforcement officers to wear armor vests whenever feasible; and the agency has a violent crime rate at or above the national average as determined by the FBI; or the agency has not received a grant under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. Authorizations and Appropriations

The BPV program was first authorized by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 ( P.L. There are several factors that affect whether a law enforcement officer will wear an armor vest. The Life Cycle of Armor Vests

There are no definitive data on how long an armor vest will last before it needs to be replaced. Many manufacturers offer a five-year warranty on their armor vests, but this is not indicative of the useful lifespan of an armor vest. The age of an armor vest alone does not cause its ballistic resistance to deteriorate. The level of care and maintenance for the vest has been shown to have a greater impact than age. Effectiveness of Armor Vests

There are no definitive data on the number of law enforcement officers whose lives have been saved by vests paid for, in part, with funds from the BPV program. A frequently cited statistic is that armor vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers over the past 30 years, but it is impossible to determine how many of those vests were purchased with funds from the BPV program. However, as the NIJ notes, there is no such thing as bulletproof armor. While there are limits on how much protection armor vests can provide, the risk of dying from a gunshot wound to the torso is 3.4 times higher for law enforcement officers who do not wear armor vests. Selected Issues for Congress

How much support, if any, should the federal government provide for something that is a prerogative of state and local governments? Congress might consider whether making formal care and maintenance training requirements should be a condition of receiving funds under the BPV program, much like the mandatory wear policy the BJA put in place.
Firearms are one of the leading causes of deaths for law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty. Since FY1999, Congress has provided funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to help them purchase armor vests for their officers. The Matching Grant Program for Law Enforcement Armor Vests (hereinafter, "BPV program") provides grants to state, local, and tribal governments to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers and court officers. The BPV program was first authorized by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-181). It has been subsequently reauthorized four times. The most recent reauthorization expired in FY2012. Between FY1999 and FY2012, annual appropriations for the program generally ranged between $25 million and $30 million. However, over the past four fiscal years, annual appropriations for the program were less than $23 million.
Armor vests can only save lives when they are actually worn. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that an increasing percentage of police departments have instituted "mandatory wear" policies. Several factors can affect whether a law enforcement officer will wear an armor vest. Safety concerns are the most significant, followed by whether the officer's department has a mandatory wear policy. Comfort and fit are also a factor.
While armor vests can only save lives when they are worn, there is also a limit on how long they can be worn and still be effective. No definitive data exist on how long an armor vest will last before it needs to be replaced. Many manufacturers offer a five-year warranty on their vests, but this is not necessarily indicative of their useful lifespan. The age of an armor vest alone does not cause its ballistic resistance to deteriorate. Vest care and maintenance have been shown to have a greater impact than age.
Similarly, no definitive data exist on the number of law enforcement officers whose lives have been saved by vests paid for, in part, with funds from the BPV program. A frequently cited statistic is that armor vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers over the past 30 years, but it is not known how many of those vests were purchased in part with funds from the BPV program.
While there is no such thing as a totally bulletproof vest, research has shown that armor vests do save lives. The risk of dying from a gunshot wound to the torso is 3.4 times higher for law enforcement officers who do not wear armor vests.
Should Congress consider legislation to reauthorize the BPV program, policymakers may consider several issues, including (1) what role the federal government should play, if any, in providing armor vests for state and local law enforcement, (2) whether Congress should invest in developing new technology for armor vests, and (3) whether Congress should require law enforcement agencies to provide training on the care and maintenance of body armor as a condition of receiving funding under the BPV program.