FedRAMP vs. CJIS: The Definitive Guide to Cloud Compliance in Government and Law Enforcement
As government and law enforcement agencies modernize their IT infrastructure, two compliance frameworks frequently emerge at the center of cloud adoption conversations: FedRAMP and CJIS. Both represent critical standards for data protection, but they were built for distinct purposes, cover different types of data, and are enforced through fundamentally different mechanisms.
This blog post delivers a comprehensive, side-by-side comparison of FedRAMP and CJIS to help vendors, IT managers, and public-sector leaders understand how these frameworks align—and where they diverge.
Understanding the Frameworks
FedRAMP Overview
FedRAMP (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program) is a mandatory U.S. federal government program that governs how cloud services are evaluated, authorized, and monitored for use by federal agencies. It was developed by the General Services Administration (GSA) and guided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FedRAMP ensures that cloud products meet minimum federal security standards, which are based on NIST SP 800-53 controls.
FedRAMP’s goal is to reduce duplication of effort across agencies and to provide a unified, standardized approach to security authorizations. Once a cloud service provider (CSP) achieves a FedRAMP authorization—through an agency ATO or a provisional ATO from the FedRAMP Joint Authorization Board (JAB)—that authorization can be reused by other agencies.
CJIS Overview
CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Services Security Policy) is a federal policy maintained by the FBI, specifically crafted to protect criminal justice information (CJI). It applies not just to federal law enforcement, but to state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) agencies that handle criminal data. CJIS ensures that sensitive law enforcement data—like arrest records, fingerprint scans, case files, and biometric data—is secured in transit, at rest, and during access.
Unlike FedRAMP, CJIS is not a centralized certification. Enforcement occurs state-by-state, led by a CJIS Systems Officer (CSO). Each jurisdiction may interpret and implement CJIS requirements differently, even though they’re based on the same national policy.
In-Depth Comparison Table: FedRAMP vs. CJIS
| Feature | FedRAMP | CJIS |
| Full Name | Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program | Criminal Justice Information Services Security Policy |
| Primary Purpose | To standardize cloud security assessments for federal agency use | To protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of criminal justice information |
| Applies To | Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) working with federal agencies | Law enforcement agencies and vendors that store, access, or transmit CJI |
| Scope of Coverage | Cloud infrastructure, platform, and software services (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) | Criminal records, biometrics, case data, and other CJI |
| Authoritative Body | FedRAMP PMO under GSA, guided by OMB | FBI CJIS Division |
| Security Control Baseline | NIST SP 800-53 controls (Low, Moderate, High impact levels) | FBI’s CJIS Security Policy |
| Audit Requirement | Requires third-party audit by a certified 3PAO | No third-party audit required; state CSO reviews compliance |
| Certification Outcome | Authorization to Operate (ATO) or Provisional ATO (P-ATO) | No formal certification; compliance acknowledged by agency or CSO |
| Governance Structure | Centralized and consistent across federal government | Decentralized; policies may be interpreted differently across states |
| Encryption Standard | FIPS 140-2 required for data at rest and in transit | FIPS 140-2 required for data at rest and in transit |
| Personnel Requirements | Background checks for CSP employees with access to systems | Fingerprint-based background checks for all individuals accessing CJI |
| Monitoring and Logging | Continuous monitoring, real-time logging, and monthly reporting required | Audit logging and access tracking required; real-time monitoring recommended |
| Physical Security | Strict physical access controls per NIST guidance | Physical safeguards required for any facility housing CJI |
| Access Control | Role-based access control (RBAC), MFA, session limits enforced | Role-based access, advanced authentication, MFA required in many cases |
| Incident Response | Requires IR plan, breach notification, root cause analysis | Requires incident procedures, reporting timelines defined by agency |
| Implementation Timeline | 12–18 months depending on JAB or agency sponsor | Can vary widely by state; typically shorter |
| Cost of Compliance | High (often exceeds $1 million over lifecycle) | Variable, generally lower but unpredictable |
| Public Listings | FedRAMP Marketplace lists all authorized vendors | No public directory; often disclosed in RFPs or vendor materials |
| Examples of Use | Used by federal agencies like DoD, DHS, NASA, and others | Used by state/local police departments for bodycams, records, and CAD systems |
| Overlap with Other Frameworks | Aligns with FISMA, NIST RMF, ISO 27001 | May overlap with HIPAA, NIST CSF, and state information sharing policies |
How CJIS and FedRAMP Interact in Practice
In many public-sector environments, these frameworks coexist. A cloud platform may achieve FedRAMP Moderate to serve federal agencies and still need to meet CJIS standards to host local police bodycam footage or dispatch records. While both frameworks emphasize encryption, access control, and physical security, CJIS places more weight on jurisdictional authority and law enforcement-specific use cases, such as chain-of-custody and real-time access tracking for officers in the field.
FedRAMP’s rigor is unmatched in terms of documentation, continuous monitoring, and audit trail generation. However, CJIS often has more prescriptive operational requirements—like requiring system users to pass fingerprint-based background checks through the FBI or mandating local law enforcement oversight of vendor operations.
Do You Need Both?
The answer depends entirely on your client base and data type. If you’re targeting only local law enforcement, CJIS compliance is usually sufficient. If you’re working with federal law enforcement or any federal agency, FedRAMP is required.
But in reality, most technology vendors will eventually need to demonstrate both CJIS alignment and FedRAMP authorization—especially as jurisdictions collaborate across local, state, and federal lines. A vendor offering a bodycam management platform, for example, may need CJIS for police departments and FedRAMP Moderate to sell the same solution to a DOJ-sponsored pilot program.
Key Considerations for Vendors
Compliance is not just about technical capabilities—it’s about documentation, process maturity, and transparency. FedRAMP expects a CSP to maintain living documentation: system security plans (SSPs), plans of action and milestones (POA&Ms), and continuous monitoring reports. CJIS, on the other hand, expects that providers can prove at any time that personnel are cleared, that audit logs are retained for at least one year, and that local agencies are fully aware of vendor roles.
Vendors often err by assuming that FedRAMP authorization “covers” CJIS—it does not. While FedRAMP Moderate or High may meet most technical requirements of CJIS, actual CJIS compliance must be confirmed by a CJIS Systems Officer within each relevant jurisdiction. Agencies may still demand direct evidence, such as employee fingerprint clearance or data residency documentation.
Strategic Takeaways
FedRAMP and CJIS are both pillars of public-sector data security, but they are not interchangeable. FedRAMP is a federal, standardized cloud authorization model built on NIST controls, while CJIS is a criminal justice-specific policy enforced through local authority. Understanding the unique obligations of each is vital for any vendor, integrator, or agency leader navigating the secure cloud landscape.
For organizations operating at the intersection of federal and law enforcement IT, achieving and maintaining compliance with both frameworks may be complex—but it is essential for building trust, winning contracts, and protecting public safety data in the digital age.
