    Federal Grants: More Can Be Done to Improve Weed and Seed Program
    Management (Letter Report, 07/16/1999, GAO/GGD-99-110).

    The Weed and Seed Program is a community-based, multiagency program that
    seeks to "weed out" crime from targeted neighborhoods, then "seed" the
    area with various programs and resources to stop crime from recurring.
    The Justice Department considers the program to be an important part of
    its crime prevention efforts as well as a key part of the Clinton
    Administration's comprehensive community revitalization strategy. Weed
    and Seed sites develop partnerships with other federal, state, and local
    governments and private sector groups to augment federal Weed and Seed
    grant money with additional resources from these partners. These
    additional resources are intended to help sites become self-sufficient
    without Weed and Seed grant funds. This report assesses how (1) the
    program is managed by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Weed
    and Seed, (2) the Executive Office monitors local sites to ensure that
    grant requirements are met, (3) the Executive Office determines when
    sites have become self-sustaining, and (4) the Executive Office and
    sites are measuring the program's results.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  GGD-99-110
         TITLE:  Federal Grants: More Can Be Done to Improve Weed and Seed
    	     Program Management
          DATE:  07/16/1999
       SUBJECT:  Internal controls
    	     Crime prevention
    	     Performance measures
    	     Law enforcement
    	     Community development programs
    	     Federal grants
    	     Program graduation
    	     Federal aid for criminal justice
    	     Grant monitoring
    IDENTIFIER:  DOJ Operation Weed and Seed Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
    ** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
    ** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
    ** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
    ** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
    ** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
    ** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
    ** preserved.                                                   **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
    ** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
    ** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
    **                                                              **
    **                                            **
    **                                                              **
    ** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
    ******************************************************************

        United States General Accounting Office GAO               Report
        to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary,
        and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate
        July 1999         FEDERAL GRANTS More Can Be Done to Improve Weed
        and Seed Program Management GAO/GGD-99-110 United States General
        Accounting Office
        General Government Division Washington, D.C.  20548 B-281367 July
        16, 1999 The Honorable Judd Gregg Chairman The Honorable Ernest
        Hollings Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Commerce,
        Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Committee on
        Appropriations United States Senate According to the Department of
        Justice (DOJ), the Weed and Seed Program is an important component
        of its crime prevention program as well as a major part of the
        Clinton Administration's comprehensive community revitalization
        strategy. Weed and Seed is a community-based, multiagency program
        that proposes to "weed out" crime from targeted neighborhoods,
        then "seed" the site with a variety of programs and resources to
        prevent crime from recurring. A central tenet of the program is
        for local Weed and Seed sites to develop partnerships with other
        federal, state, and local governments and private sector agencies
        to leverage federal Weed and Seed grant funds with additional
        resources from these partners to promote weeding and seeding
        activities.  These additional resources are intended to help the
        sites achieve the goal of becoming self- sustaining without Weed
        and Seed grant funds. This report responds to a requirement
        contained in the Senate report (105- 235) accompanying the fiscal
        year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related
        Agencies' appropriations bill. This report also reviews the
        efficiency and effectiveness of the Weed and Seed Program.
        Specifically, this report assesses how (1) the program is managed
        by DOJ's Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS), (2) EOWS
        monitors local Weed and Seed sites to ensure that grant
        requirements are met, (3) EOWS determines when sites have become
        self-sustaining, and (4) EOWS and selected sites are measuring
        program results. Page 1                   GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and
        Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 EOWS has not established an
        adequate internal control requiring that Results in Brief
        significant program management decisions be documented.1   Without
        this control, EOWS management has not always fully documented EOWS
        decisions, such as qualifying new and existing sites for funding.
        For example, in reviewing 12 of the 70 fiscal year 1999 new site
        qualification funding decisions, we found that for 5 of these 12
        decisions, documentation was insufficient for us to determine how
        inconsistencies among external consultants and grant monitor
        recommendations and EOWS management decisions were reconciled.
        Without this documentation, it was impossible for us to determine
        the basis and rationale for these decisions.  In fiscal year 1999,
        EOWS made decisions to qualify 164 of the existing 177 sites for
        continued funding, although in some cases, EOWS grant monitors
        recommended against additional funding. However, available
        documentation was insufficient for us to determine the basis and
        rationale for EOWS' deciding to qualify these sites for continued
        funding. For the remaining 13 sites that EOWS decided not to
        qualify for continued funding, documentation was sufficient to
        determine the basis and rationale for these decisions. EOWS also
        did not always ensure that local Weed and Seed sites met critical
        grant requirements, such as the submission of progress reports.
        Progress reports are an important tool to help EOWS management and
        grant monitors determine how sites are meeting program objectives
        and to assist in making future grant qualification decisions.
        Almost one-half of the 177 sites funded in fiscal year 1998 had
        not submitted all of the required progress reports. In addition,
        while EOWS is to conduct monitoring visits of all Weed and Seed
        sites to determine the sites' compliance with grant requirements,
        EOWS grant monitors did not always document the results of these
        visits. Documentation of these visits is an important tool for
        EOWS grant monitors to convey to EOWS management officials how
        well sites are complying with grant requirements and for EOWS to
        use in making existing site funding qualification decisions. EOWS
        has not developed criteria to determine when sites have become
        self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed
        funds, even though the goal of sites' becoming self-sustaining is
        central to the program.  While we identified actions that selected
        sites had taken toward self-sustainment, at the time of our
        review, no site's funding had been 1The Comptroller General's
        guidance on internal controls in the federal government, Standards
        for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, requires that
        these systems and all transactions and significant events are to
        be clearly documented, and that the documentation is to be readily
        available for examination. Page 2
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        reduced or withdrawn as a result of its efforts to become self-
        sustaining during the 9 years of the program's existence. EOWS'
        performance indicators generally did not measure program results.
        While our review was in progress, EOWS changed some of its
        performance indicators in an attempt to better measure how well
        sites were meeting program objectives.  However, the revised
        indicators still primarily tracked program activity rather than
        results. For example, EOWS tracked the number of people who
        attended tutorial programs rather than assessing program results,
        such as attendees' academic improvements. Despite the general lack
        of performance indicators, most local officials with whom we spoke
        commented favorably on the activities funded by the local Weed and
        Seed sites.  They believed that a key ingredient to the Weed and
        Seed Program's success was the commitment of the mayors' and U.S.
        Attorneys' offices and civic and business leaders. We make
        recommendations in this report to (1) strengthen EOWS' management
        control over qualifying new and existing sites for funding and
        site monitoring, (2) develop criteria to determine when EOWS
        should reduce or withdraw program funding from self-sustaining
        sites, and (3) develop additional performance measures that better
        track program outcomes. The Weed and Seed Program is a DOJ
        discretionary grant program that Background    provides funding to
        community grantees to help prevent and control crime and improve
        the quality of life in targeted high-crime neighborhoods across
        the country.2 It is a joint federal, state, and local program for
        coordinated law enforcement and neighborhood reinvestment.
        Program funding is to support Weed and Seed grantee neighborhood
        sites and to provide training and technical assistance. The Weed
        and Seed Program has grown dramatically since it began in fiscal
        year 1991 with three pilot sites3 and a relatively small
        investment of federal resources. For example, between fiscal years
        1995 and 1998, the number of Weed and Seed sites increased from 36
        to 177, while the total annual program budget increased (in
        constant 1998 dollars) from about $34 million to $43 million. In
        addition, during the same time period, the 2EOWS officials said
        that the Weed and Seed Program is not a typical, discretionary
        grant program but a community-based, multiagency approach or
        strategy that proposes to weed out crime from targeted
        neighborhoods, then seed the site with a variety of programs and
        resources to prevent crime from recurring.  A grantee may have
        more than one site. 3The Weed and Seed fiscal year 1991 pilot
        sites were Kansas City, MO; Omaha, NE; and Trenton, NJ. Page 3
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        average grant awarded per site decreased (in constant 1998
        dollars) from about $786,000 to $260,000. In fiscal year 1999,
        with a budget of $49 million, DOJ plans to award grants to about
        200 Weed and Seed sites. See appendix I for a map showing the
        locations and numbers of Weed and Seed sites funded in fiscal year
        1998. EOWS is responsible for the national management and
        administration of the Weed and Seed Program, including developing
        policy and providing federal guidance and oversight.  EOWS
        currently administers the Weed and Seed Program with a staff of 4
        management officials, 12 grant monitors, 7 support staff, 2
        detailees, 3 contractors, and 4 interns. Before interested
        communities can apply for a Weed and Seed grant, they must first
        be approved for official recognition by EOWS.  Official
        recognition requires the U.S. Attorney in the area where the Weed
        and Seed site is to be located to organize a local steering
        committee.  The steering committee, which can be made up of
        various federal, state, and local representatives, including
        residents, is responsible for local administration of the program.
        For official recognition, a site is also required to develop a
        management plan, engage residents and other partners in its
        activities, and develop a comprehensive strategy to weed out crime
        and gang activity and to seed the area with social services,
        economic services, and economic revitalization. The four required
        elements of the Weed and Seed Program are (1) law enforcement; (2)
        community policing; (3) crime and substance prevention,
        intervention, and treatment; and (4) neighborhood restoration.
        According to EOWS, law enforcement should attempt to eliminate the
        most violent offenders by coordinating and integrating the efforts
        of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in targeted
        high-crime neighborhoods. The objective of community policing is
        to raise the level of citizen and community involvement in crime
        prevention and intervention activities. Crime and substance abuse
        prevention, intervention, and treatment should include youth
        services, school programs, community and social programs, and
        support groups. Finally, neighborhood restoration should focus on
        distressed neighborhoods through economic and housing development.
        Weed and Seed sites fund a variety of law enforcement and
        community activities.  For example, law enforcement-funded
        activities ranged from participation in a multijurisdictional,
        interagency, antidrug task force to conducting bike and foot
        patrols in the community. Page 4                    GAO/GGD-99-110
        Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 To assess how EOWS
        manages the Weed and Seed Program, we reviewed Scope and      (1)
        the criteria used to determine which new and existing sites should
        be Methodology    qualified for funding and (2) the policies and
        guidance that EOWS provides to applicants.  To gather this
        information, we interviewed officials from DOJ and EOWS and
        reviewed pertinent documents, including guidance set forth in the
        Weed and Seed Program Implementation Manual, official recognition
        and grant applications, and budget reports.  In addition, we
        judgmentally selected 12 of 70 fiscal year 1999 official
        recognition files for review.  These 12 files included 3 files
        from each of the 4 categories that EOWS used in making their
        official recognition determinations.  Further, we reviewed the
        fiscal year 1999 qualification funding decisions for the 177 sites
        that were in existence in fiscal year 1998. To assess how EOWS
        monitors grant use, we reviewed EOWS program grant guidance, the
        EOWS monitoring guide to be used by grant monitors when conducting
        site visits, and the grant files for the five Weed and Seed sites
        that we visited: Atlanta, GA; Dyersburg, TN; Philadelphia, PA; San
        Diego, CA; and Woburn, MA.  We judgmentally selected these 5 sites
        from the 177 sites funded in fiscal year 1998 (1) to obtain a mix
        of geographic locations, populations, and lengths of time in
        existence and (2) on the basis of our discussions with EOWS
        management. These locations were not selected to be representative
        of all Weed and Seed sites. We also reviewed selected site visit
        monitoring reports prepared by grant monitors for these sites and
        quarterly financial status reports and biannual progress reports
        submitted in fiscal year 1998. We interviewed EOWS management
        officials, grant monitors, and coordinators at these five sites
        regarding procedures used for monitoring Weed and Seed sites. To
        assess how EOWS determines when sites have become self-sustaining
        and how EOWS and selected sites are measuring the success of their
        Weed and Seed activities, we performed site visits at the five
        Weed and Seed locations previously cited. We also surveyed, by
        mail, the 87 sites that had been awarded Weed and Seed grants
        since September 30, 1996.  We received usable responses from 74 of
        the 87 sites, or 85 percent. Our questionnaire asked Weed and Seed
        site coordinators to provide current information, by January 29,
        1999, about their sites, such as (1) actions taken to become self-
        sustaining, (2) partnerships or cooperative arrangements
        established with other entities, and (3) performance indicators
        used to measure the sites' success.  See appendix II for a copy of
        the questionnaire, including responses. Page 5
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 In
        developing the questionnaire, we asked EOWS management officials
        to review several drafts of the document.  In addition, we
        pretested the questionnaire by telephone with several Weed and
        Seed site coordinators. We conducted the survey from January to
        April, 1999. To determine the performance indicators currently in
        place and their adequacy in measuring program success, we
        interviewed officials from EOWS and the five sites that we
        visited.  We also reviewed pertinent documents, including EOWS
        policies and guidance, grant applications, and data collected
        pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
        (GPRA)4 and from our survey results. We requested comments on a
        draft of this report from the Attorney General of the United
        States and the Director of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed.
        On June 23, 1999, we met with the Deputy Assistant Attorney
        General and Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and the
        Director, EOWS, and members of his staff to discuss the draft
        report. The Assistant Attorney General provided written comments
        on the draft report on July 1, 1999, which are discussed near the
        end of this letter and reprinted in appendix IV. We did our audit
        work between October 1998 and May 1999 in accordance with
        generally accepted government auditing standards. EOWS does not
        have an adequate internal control requiring that new and EOWS'
        Internal      existing site qualification for funding decisions
        always be fully Control Weakness    documented. Because of this,
        EOWS cannot ensure that it is making the best allocation of
        available funds when it makes these decisions. Hampers Weed and
        Seed Program        The Comptroller General's guidance on internal
        controls in the federal Management          government, Standards
        for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, requires that
        these systems and all transactions and significant events are to
        be clearly documented, and that the documentation is to be readily
        available for examination.  Documentation of transactions or other
        significant events should be complete and accurate and should
        facilitate tracing the transaction or event and related
        information from before it occurs, while it is in process, to
        after it is completed. 4The Government Performance and Results Act
        of 1993, P.L. 103-62, seeks to shift the focus of federal
        management and decisionmaking away from concentrating on the
        activities performed to a focus on the results of those activities
        that are undertaken. Page 6
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        EOWS' new site funding qualification decisions were not always
        fully New Site Funding           documented. EOWS management
        officials were able to provide us with Qualification Decisions
        some documentation for 12 of the 70 fiscal year 1999 new site
        funding Were Not Always            qualification decisions we
        reviewed.  However, for 5 of these 12 decisions Documented
        we identified inconsistencies between the documentation and the
        decisions. The available documentation was insufficient for us to
        determine how these inconsistencies were reconciled.  Therefore,
        we could not determine the basis and rationale for these five
        decisions. The first step in the new site funding qualification
        process is for EOWS to officially recognize a site's eligibility
        to apply for formal involvement in the Weed and Seed Program.
        According to EOWS management officials, in fiscal year 1999, they
        created a new official recognition process, which evolved from
        approving all applicants, to creating a competitive process under
        which all applicants would not be approved.  As part of this new
        process, EOWS management officials said they were to consider
        recommendations made by external consultants and EOWS grant
        monitors. They also were to consider the number of sites already
        funded within the U.S. Attorney's district, the extent of support
        provided by that U.S. Attorney's office to those sites, and
        insights obtained from the U.S. Attorneys for applications that
        met or almost met all official recognition requirements. For
        fiscal year 1999, EOWS received applications for official
        recognition from 70 potential sites, and it approved 27 sites.
        The 27 sites were invited to apply for fiscal year 1999 funding
        contingent upon the completion of all official recognition
        requirements. We reviewed 12 of the 70 fiscal year 1999 official
        recognition files, and, for 5 of the site qualification decisions,
        we identified inconsistencies among the external consultant
        recommendations, grant monitor recommendations, and EOWS
        management decisions. The available documentation was insufficient
        for us to determine how these inconsistencies were reconciled.
        Therefore, we could not determine the basis and rationale for the
        decisions. For example, documentation for two of the files showed
        that the external consultants and EOWS grant monitors had
        recommended that the sites not be officially recognized, but EOWS
        management had approved the sites.  According to EOWS management
        officials, these approvals were granted on the basis of additional
        information provided by the local U.S. Attorneys; however, this
        additional information was not documented by EOWS. Page 7
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        EOWS did not always fully document how it made its decisions on
        whether Funding Qualification            to qualify the 177
        existing sites for continued funding and special project5
        Decisions Were Not Always funding. Although EOWS officials could
        provide us with documentation for Documented
        some of the information considered for existing sites, such as
        unspent grant award balances and compliance with reporting
        requirements, this documentation was not sufficient for us to
        determine the basis and rationale for the decisions to qualify 164
        of the 177 existing sites for continued funding.  EOWS, however,
        documented the basis and rationale for the 13 sites that it
        decided to disqualify for continued funding. In addition, EOWS
        could not provide us with documentation regarding how it made its
        special project funding qualification decisions. Since fiscal year
        1991, the total annual Weed and Seed Program's budget has
        increased (in 1998 constant dollars) from about $589,000 to about
        $49 million.  In addition, the number of Weed and Seed Program
        grant awards has grown dramatically since fiscal year 1995, while
        the average grant has decreased substantially.  For example, in
        fiscal year 1995, EOWS awarded grants to 36 sites, with an average
        grant of about $786,000 (in 1998 constant dollars). In fiscal year
        1998, however, EOWS awarded grants to 177 sites, with an average
        grant award of $260,000.  See table 1 for fiscal years 1991-99
        data on the Weed and Seed Program, including EOWS budget and
        average site funding history. 5Special projects include Mobile
        Community Outreach Police Stations (MCOPS), the Kids Safe Program,
        and Kids House.  EOWS describes MCOPS as a way to enhance the
        community-policing mission of the Weed and Seed Program by using
        MCOPS  as a community meeting place to offer health, welfare, and
        public safety programs. The Kids Safe Program is administered by
        DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and
        attempts to reduce child abuse and neglect and prevent delinquency
        in communities.  EOWS describes Kids House, which is implemented
        by the Urban Family Institute, as a safe, family-like environment
        run by volunteers where children can go when they are not in
        school. Page 8
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        Table 1:  Weed and Seed Site Funding History for Fiscal Years
        1991-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Combined EOWS appropriation and
        Appropriation       Asset forfeiture                        asset
        Number of        Average site Fiscal year
        budget                 budgeta           forfeiture budget
        funded sites            fundingb 1991
        $589,120                       $0                  $589,120
        3         $196,759 1992
        12,973,319                         0               12,973,319
        20           800,451 1993
        14,865,885                         0               14,865,885
        21           680,571 1994
        24,839,056               8,990,277                 33,829,333
        36           804,721 1995
        24,587,002               9,433,962                 34,020,964
        36           786,164 1996
        29,320,988               9,259,259                 38,580,247
        87           349,794 1997
        28,787,879               9,090,909                 37,878,788
        118           232,323 1998
        33,500,000               9,000,000                 42,500,000
        177           260,000 1999
        40,000,000               9,000,000                 49,000,000
        200c           200,000c a Most sites also received asset
        forfeiture funds for the payment of various costs incurred by
        state and local law enforcement officers participating in joint
        law enforcement operations with federal agencies. b Does not
        include additional funding allocations, such as EOWS' salaries and
        expenses, technical assistance and training, and travel costs. c
        Number of funded sites and average site funding is estimated.
        Source:  EOWS data. For fiscal year 1999, EOWS management
        officials decided for the first time not to qualify for funding
        all existing sites that met grant requirements. In fiscal year
        1999, EOWS decided to disqualify for funding 13 of the 177 sites
        that were funded in fiscal year 1998. EOWS officials developed a
        site analysis matrix to assist them in deciding which sites to
        qualify for funding.  This matrix contained information about all
        177 sites, such as unspent grant award balances over $350,000 and
        each site's compliance with DOJ's reporting requirements.
        According to EOWS management officials, in making their final
        decisions they also considered the recommendations made by EOWS
        grant monitors and their own personal knowledge of the sites. For
        the 13 sites that were disqualified for funding in fiscal year
        1999, EOWS documented the basis and rationale for these decisions
        by sending a letter to each site describing the reasons for its
        decision. However, from our review of the available documentation
        for the remaining 164 sites, this documentation was insufficient
        to determine the basis and rationale for these qualification
        decisions.  For example, in fiscal year 1999, one site was
        qualified for funding even though it had a grant award balance of
        over $350,000 and the EOWS grant monitor had recommended that the
        site not receive funding. Two other sites were also qualified for
        funding for fiscal year 1999 even though they had grant award
        balances over $350,000 and had not filed all of the required
        financial and Page 9                            GAO/GGD-99-110
        Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 progress reports.
        Further, the EOWS grant monitor recommended that one of these
        sites not receive fiscal 1999 funding due to its delays in
        spending its first two awards. According to his report, "the
        grantee is so far behind that a year without funding will allow
        them to catch up and be on track again."  EOWS management
        officials told us their decisions to qualify these sites for
        funding was based on their personal knowledge of these sites'
        activities. However, we were not able to determine the basis and
        rationale for these decisions because they were not documented in
        the information provided to us by EOWS. EOWS has also qualified
        existing sites to receive funding for special projects. For
        example, in fiscal year 1998, EOWS qualified sites for funding of
        $1,043,334 for the Mobile Community Outreach Police Stations
        (MCOPS); $1,000,000 for the Kids Safe Program; and $539,797 for
        Kids House.  Since written procedures for qualifying sites for
        special projects had not been developed and the basis and
        rationale for these decisions had not been documented, we could
        not determine how these decisions were made. EOWS management
        officials told us that they made these decisions on the basis of
        what they perceived as the needs of particular Weed and Seed sites
        after contacting the sites and speaking with EOWS grant monitors.
        See table 2 for a summary of EOWS' funding allocations for fiscal
        year 1998. Table 2: EOWS Fiscal Year 1998    Funding
        Amount Funding Allocations               Weed and Seed sites
        $42,668,936 Special projects
        3,926,130 1998 carryover
        2,088,058 Travel expenses
        1,344,963 Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
        966,846 Salaries and expenses
        889,000 Technical assistance and training
        874,699 Conferences
        773,213 Congressional earmark
        190,000 Other
        53,973 Total
        $53,775,818a a In addition to the fiscal year 1998 EOWS grant and
        asset forfeiture budget amount, EOWS' total budget included an
        unobligated balance carryover from fiscal year 1997 of
        $11,275,818. Source:  EOWS data. Page 10
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        EOWS did not always ensure that local Weed and Seed sites complied
        with EOWS Did Not Ensure critical grant requirements. For example,
        on the basis of our review of the That Weed and Seed
        site analysis matrix provided to us by EOWS, almost one-half of
        the 177 existing sites that were funded in fiscal year 1998 had
        not submitted all of Sites Met Grant                 the required
        progress reports. In addition, EOWS grant monitors did not
        Requirements                    always document the results of
        their site visits as required by EOWS guidance. EOWS requires
        semiannual progress reports describing site activities during the
        reporting period and the status or accomplishment of program
        objectives.  According to EOWS officials, progress reports are an
        important tool to help EOWS management officials and grant
        monitors determine how sites are meeting program objectives and to
        assist them in making future grant qualification decisions. Our
        review of the EOWS site analysis matrix showed that as of December
        1998, 80, or 45 percent, of the 177 sites had not submitted these
        required progress reports. In addition, EOWS requires the sites to
        provide program data, such as crime statistics and safe haven
        program attendance, to assess program results.  Our review of the
        EOWS site analysis matrix showed that as of December 1998, 20, or
        11 percent, of the 177 sites had not submitted the required data.
        Further, according to the EOWS' monitoring guide, grant monitors
        are to conduct site visits every 18 months and monitor Weed and
        Seed sites' compliance with grant requirements through desk
        reviews, technical assistance, and telephone contacts on a
        continuing basis. The guide instructs grant monitors to prepare a
        site visit report. According to EOWS officials, documentation of
        these visits is an important tool for EOWS grant monitors to
        convey to EOWS management officials how well sites are complying
        with grant requirements and EOWS to use in making existing site
        funding qualification decisions. According to EOWS management
        officials, the grant monitors have not always documented their
        site visits due to the large number of sites they are responsible
        for monitoring-as many as 23 sites per monitor.  EOWS management
        officials said that they hired four additional grant monitors in
        fiscal year 1999, which should decrease the number of sites that
        each grant monitor is responsible for monitoring. Page 11
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 An
        important goal of the Weed and Seed is the self-sustainment of
        local EOWS Lacks Criteria             Weed and Seed sites through
        the leveraging of additional resources from on Continued Funding
        non-EOWS sources. However, EOWS has not developed criteria to
        determine (1) when sites have become self-sustaining and (2) when
        to for Sites That Become reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed grant
        funds. Although many grantees Self-Sustaining                 have
        received Weed and Seed funding for several years, EOWS has not
        reduced or withdrawn any Weed and Seed grantee's funds because of
        progress their site's had made toward the goal of becoming self-
        sustaining. Although EOWS does not know what progress sites have
        made toward self-sustainment, most of the sites we visited and
        surveyed reported making efforts toward that goal. While self-
        sustainment is an important goal of the Weed and Seed EOWS Has Not
        Determined Program, EOWS has not developed specific criteria to
        determine when When Sites Become Self-         sites have become
        self-sustaining or determined the progress sites had Sustaining
        made toward achieving this goal.  The EOWS Executive Director and
        EOWS documents stated that a critical goal of the program is for
        sites to become self-sustaining by leveraging Weed and Seed grant
        funds with resources from other public and private sources. In
        1995, the DOJ Inspector General reported that the Weed and Seed
        Program was founded on the premise that federal funding would
        continue for a finite period after which a Weed and Seed site
        would be self-sustaining. We identified partnerships at each of
        the five sites we visited that resulted in the leveraging of
        additional resources for these sites.  For example, at one site,
        the city police department and the city school system each
        provided a staff member to fill Weed and Seed administrative
        positions as a part of their other duties so that Weed and Seed
        funds could be used for other purposes and not spent on funding
        for administrative positions.  At another site, a local business
        donated computers to be used in computer classes for children.
        Most of the sites that responded to our survey indicated that they
        had developed partnerships and arrangements with other groups to
        move toward the goal of becoming self-sustaining. Of the 74 sites
        responding to our survey, 72 indicated that they had developed
        partnerships or cooperative arrangements with other government or
        nongovernment groups.  For example, 59 sites responded that they
        had developed partnerships with local government agencies, while
        54 indicated that they had developed such arrangements with
        nonprofit agencies.6  Some 6These numbers add to more than 76
        because respondents were allowed to identify more than 1
        partnership. Page 12
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        respondents reported establishing partnerships with various
        groups, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a
        state public health department, city parks and recreation
        departments, and local businesses. EOWS does not have criteria for
        determining whether or the extent to EOWS Has Not Determined which
        a site has become self-sustaining and whether funds could be When
        to Reduce or               reduced or withdrawn.  EOWS management
        officials said that, to date, no Withdraw Weed and Seed
        site's funding has been reduced or withdrawn as a result of the
        site's Funds                           efforts to become self-
        sustaining.  In addition, these officials said that they were
        reluctant to reduce or withdraw funding because of a concern that
        sites may not continue to implement the Weed and Seed Program.
        Although EOWS has not developed criteria to reduce or withdraw
        sites' funding if they were to become self-sustaining, EOWS
        management officials said that beginning in the Year 2000, they
        would require sites7 to reapply for official recognition every 5
        years and would encourage them to expand to additional sites.
        According to EOWS management officials, this new policy, which was
        made during the course of our review, is intended to determine
        whether sites still need funding. To obtain official recognition,
        sites must describe intended partnerships with other federal,
        state, and local governments and private sector agencies to
        leverage additional resources. For example, a site would be
        required to stipulate the level of resources that are committed by
        its partners. However, without criteria to determine when sites
        become self-sustaining, EOWS does not have a basis or rationale
        for determining when to reduce or withdraw sites' funds. EOWS has
        developed various performance indicators, in an attempt to EOWS
        and Weed and               respond to GPRA.  GPRA seeks to shift
        the focus of federal management Seed Sites'
        and decisionmaking away from activities performed, to focusing on
        results or outcomes of activities undertaken.  However, the
        indicators EOWS used Performance                     to measure
        the success of the Weed and Seed Program still generally track
        Indicators Generally            activities rather than results or
        outcomes.  Weed and Seed sites also used Did Not Measure
        other indicators to measure the results of their individual
        programs, but Program Success                 these indicators
        also primarily measured activities, not outcomes. While the
        performance indicators were generally not sufficient to adequately
        measure program results, most of the local officials and residents
        with whom we spoke during our site visits were very satisfied with
        the activities funded by the local Weed and Seed programs.
        7Technically, it is the community grantee that reapplies for
        official recognition, not the site. Page 13
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 In
        an attempt to measure the results of sites' weeding efforts, EOWS
        tracks Weed and Seed Indicators    law enforcement information,
        such as community-policing activities. Generally Measure
        EOWS requires each site to have a community-policing component to
        its Activities, Not Results     program.  Community policing
        involves law enforcement working closely with community residents
        to develop solutions to violent and drug-related crime and serves
        as a stimulus for community mobilization. Before 1999, EOWS
        tracked officer duty time spent in the Weed and Seed area; the
        percentage of police officer duty hours funded by Weed and Seed;
        certain serious crimes, such as violent and property crimes; and
        the number of arrests. Recently, EOWS management officials decided
        to eliminate the reporting of all of these crimes, except for
        homicides, because they believed that doing so would improve the
        accuracy and reliability of the data reported by reducing the
        amount of data collected by Weed and Seed sites. In addition, EOWS
        currently requires sites to report whether they have (1) foot
        patrols, (2) bike patrols, (3) police substations, (4) crime
        watches, and (5) police participation in community meetings.
        Although these indicators are useful in tracking the types of
        weeding activities engaged in at the local sites, they generally
        do not measure outcomes. To measure the results of seeding
        activities, EOWS tracks safe haven program attendance. Before
        1999, EOWS tracked the total number of people who attended the
        safe haven program over a 6-month period, but EOWS recently
        reduced the tracking period to 1 week a year. EOWS management
        officials said that they made the above changes to better measure
        the results of both weeding and seeding activities. However, these
        indicators still generally measure activities rather than results.
        For example, EOWS tracks the number of people who attended safe
        havens rather than assessing program results from these safe
        havens, such as attendees' academic improvement after completing a
        tutoring program provided at the safe haven. The responses to our
        survey also show that the performance measures used by individual
        sites generally tracked activities, not results. While most sites
        reported that they have their own measures of success, these
        measures varied widely, including counting the number of newspaper
        articles about their Weed and Seed site and recording the number
        of drug- related cases prosecuted. The three most commonly
        reported measures of success by survey respondents were crime
        statistics, the number of participants in Weed and Seed-sponsored
        activities, and the level of community involvement.  Further, 12
        sites conducted surveys to gain the Page 14
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367
        perspective of community residents, and 4 sites reported on
        recidivism rates. Using crime statistics and recidivism rates as
        performance measures could be useful.  However, these measures can
        also present some methodological challenges because it is
        difficult to draw a direct causal link between crime or recidivism
        rates and Weed and Seed Program activities. For example, other
        explanations for crime rate fluctuations, such as economic trends
        and other law enforcement initiatives, could also be responsible
        for the observed outcomes.  Therefore, if these measures are used,
        any analysis that attempts to draw the causal link should attempt
        to control for alternative explanations.  From the information
        provided to us by Weed and Seed sites, it remains unclear whether
        sites that measure crime and recidivism rates controlled for other
        factors that may have contributed to changes in these rates. A
        recently released study was conducted by Abt Associates Inc.8 for
        DOJ on the effectiveness of the Weed and Seed Program.  This study
        involved eight Weed and Seed Program sites and, among other
        activities, attempted to measure crime trends at each site.
        Overall, the study indicated mixed results across the sites-there
        were significant favorable effects in the key outcome measures
        used in the Abt study for some cities and some time periods, while
        the results on outcome measures in other cities were not as
        favorable.  The study acknowledged the difficulty in drawing a
        causal link and noted that the evidence is modest in terms of
        statistical significance. Even though the performance indicators
        were not sufficient to adequately Local Participants Reported
        measure program results, most of the local officials with whom we
        spoke Satisfaction With the             during our site visits
        were very satisfied with the activities funded by the Programs
        local Weed and Seed programs. These officials, such as mayors,
        city administrators, U.S. attorneys, and high-ranking police
        officers, noted that the key ingredient to the Weed and Seed
        programs' success was the commitment of the mayors' and U.S.
        Attorneys' offices and civic and business leaders. Local sites
        funded a wide variety of law enforcement and community activities
        to implement the Weed and Seed strategy. Law enforcement- funded
        activities ranged from participation in a multijurisdictional,
        interagency, violent crime task force to community bike and foot
        patrols. Community-funded activities ranged from sponsoring a
        Black History 8 National Evaluation of Weed & Seed, Cross-Site
        Analysis, Research Report, National Institute of Justice, June
        1999. Page 15                                             GAO/GGD-
        99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 Month
        program at a local high school to providing life-skills counseling
        to at-risk youths. During our visits to selected Weed and Seed
        sites, we observed many different types of activities. These
        activities ranged from community police substations or
        ministations to court-ordered community service for youths.
        Appendix III describes our site visits and illustrates the many
        types of activities funded at these sites. Good internal controls
        are essential to achieving full accountability for the Conclusions
        resources made available for the Weed and Seed Program. However,
        EOWS lacks an adequate internal control that requires that the
        basis and rationale for new and existing Weed and Seed site
        qualification for funding decisions always be fully documented.
        In addition, EOWS has not always ensured, through its grant
        monitoring process, that site progress reports- a grant
        requirement-were submitted or that grant monitors documented their
        site visits. Through our survey and site visits, we identified
        some leveraging efforts made by Weed and Seed sites. Many of these
        efforts appeared to be leading toward the self-sustainment of some
        Weed and Seed sites.  However, while the objective of sites'
        becoming self-sustaining is a critical program goal, EOWS had yet
        to establish criteria for determining when sites should be
        classified as self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw
        funding. Although current performance measures address a variety
        of activities taking place at Weed and Seed sites, these measures
        generally are not adequate to judge program success. While EOWS
        has made some changes to the way that it measures program
        effectiveness, these indicators still generally track activities,
        not program outcomes.  We recognize that it is difficult to
        precisely measure the results of this type of community-based
        program or strategy.  However, better performance indicators as
        well as other indicators, such as compliance with grant
        requirements, would help EOWS make more informed program
        decisions, such as whether to continue funding existing sites. We
        recommend that the Attorney General of the United States direct
        the Recommendations      Director of the Executive Office of Weed
        and Seed to *  develop an adequate internal control to ensure that
        the basis and rationale for new and existing site qualification
        for funding decisions are always fully documented; *  improve
        program monitoring to ensure that sites meet the grant requirement
        of submitting progress reports, and that EOWS site visits are
        documented; Page 16                   GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed
        Grant Program Management B-281367 *  develop criteria for
        determining when sites are self-sustaining and when to reduce or
        withdraw program funding; and *  develop additional performance
        measures that track program outcomes. DOJ generally agreed with
        most of the recommendations presented in the Agency Comments and
        report and offered additional information to explain the status of
        the Our Evaluation                  current situation, as well as
        additional actions it plans to take. DOJ also provided technical
        comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. DOJ agreed with
        our recommendation for an adequate internal control to ensure that
        the basis and rationale for new and existing site qualification
        decisions are always fully documented. They provided some
        additional information on the internal controls for OJP's formal
        grant award processes. For example, they described processes
        currently in place to ensure that grants are awarded in accordance
        with Office of Management and Budget and OJP policies. While this
        information provided a framework for OJP financial controls, it
        did not specifically relate to our recommendation. Our internal
        control review focused on EOWS' decisions for qualifying new and
        existing sites for funding. DOJ agreed with our recommendation to
        improve program monitoring, citing that it has a chronic problem
        of grantees not submitting programmatic progress reports in a
        timely manner.  To address this problem, EOWS is proposing to
        suspend funding for grantees failing to submit progress reports in
        a timely manner.  Because this new proposal has yet to be
        implemented by EOWS, we believe our recommendation to ensure that
        sites meet the grant requirement of submitting timely progress
        reports is appropriate.  In addition, EOWS acknowledged the need
        to document all monitoring visits. After they received our draft
        report, they told us they had taken corrective action, and all
        monitoring reports are now up to date. However, there is no
        assurance that a process and procedures are in place to ensure
        that monitoring visits will always be documented, and we continue
        to believe that our recommendation is needed. DOJ disagreed with
        our recommendation on self-sustainability, stating that developing
        criteria is problematic.  They also commented that the draft
        report was incorrect in stating that no site's funding had been
        reduced or withdrawn as a result of the site's efforts to become
        self-sustaining, and that we used the terms "site" and "grantee"
        incorrectly. DOJ maintains that, as one neighborhood reached a
        point where it could sustain its Weed and Seed crime-reduction
        efforts, funds and resources were shifted by the grantee to other
        neighborhoods. Page 17                   GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and
        Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 With respect to self-
        sustainability, there is a distinction to be drawn between DOJ's
        comments and evidence we gathered from interviews with program
        officials and our own observations.  We acknowledge that some
        grantee funds and resources have been shifted to other
        neighborhoods within the grantee's location. However, it is not
        clear whether this occurred because the programs became less
        reliant on Weed and Seed grants or for other reasons. EOWS
        management and local program officials told us that funding had
        been reduced at some sites to fund activities in other
        neighborhoods, but not because the site demonstrated that it
        successfully reached self-sustainability. Our limited site visits
        confirmed this at the locations we selected for review. In an
        attempt to create criteria for achieving self-sustainability, EOWS
        adopted a 5-year rule under which it can discontinue qualifying
        sites for continued program funding unless the sites expand to an
        additional neighborhood site. EOWS expressed the opinion that this
        rule has created an expectation of self-sustainability for current
        sites, since some funds are to be shifted from the current
        neighborhood site to the expansion site. We continue to believe
        that EOWS needs to develop better criteria for determining when
        sites become self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw
        program funding.  Under EOWS' current 5-year rule, even if some
        resources are shifted to an expansion site, there still may be
        substantial Weed and Seed investment at the original site and EOWS
        would have no way of knowing whether the original site is self-
        sustaining. Withdrawing funding after 5 years of federal
        investment without criteria could be arbitrary.  Some sites may
        become self-sustaining sooner than 5 years-resulting in a missed
        opportunity to fund other Weed and Seed sites-while other sites
        may need more than 5 years to achieve self- sustainability.  While
        it may be challenging to develop criteria for determining when a
        site becomes self-sustaining, we believe EOWS should work toward
        this goal since it is a central and fundamental tenet of the Weed
        and Seed Program. With respect to the distinction between sites
        and grantees mentioned in EOWS' comments, we have modified the
        report to clarify when we are referring to a grantee or a site.
        DOJ officials agreed with our recommendation to develop
        performance measures that track program outcomes.  However, they
        noted that EOWS already has one performance measure in place-
        homicides-that it uses to track program outcomes.  Consequently,
        they believed that our recommendation should be modified to state
        that EOWS should develop Page 18                    GAO/GGD-99-110
        Weed and Seed Grant Program Management B-281367 and use additional
        performance measures.  We recognize that EOWS has adopted this
        outcome-oriented performance measure and have modified our
        recommendation to require EOWS to develop additional measures. DOJ
        also expressed concern that we did not include the results of a
        recently completed national evaluation of the Weed and Seed
        Program by Abt Associates Inc.  As noted in Abt's report, this
        evaluation involved case studies of eight Weed and Seed sites.
        Among other activities, each case study included two principal
        sources of empirical data, as follows: (1) analysis of crime
        trends at each site and (2) surveys of site residents, one
        conducted in 1995 and the other in 1997.  Overall, the report
        indicated mixed results across the sites-there were significant
        favorable effects in key outcome measures for some cities and some
        time periods, while the results on outcome measures in other
        cities were not as favorable.  The report noted that the evidence
        is modest in terms of statistical significance. Finally, DOJ
        stated that our report did not provide adequate insight into the
        findings of our site visits and mail surveys.   However, in our
        results in brief section, we note the satisfaction that most local
        officials we spoke with had with the activities funded by Weed and
        Seed.  These results are discussed in greater detail in the body
        of this report. Our survey results, in their entirety, are
        included as appendix II.  In addition, the details of each of our
        five site visits are included in appendix III. We are sending
        copies of this report to the Honorable Strom Thurmond, Chairman,
        and the Honorable Charles Schumer, Ranking Minority Member, Senate
        Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight.  We are also sending
        copies of this report to the Honorable Harold Rogers, Chairman,
        and the Honorable Jos  E. Serrano, Ranking Minority Member, House
        Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and
        Related Agencies; the Honorable Bill McCollum, Chairman, and the
        Honorable Robert C. Scott, Ranking Minority Member, House
        Subcommittee on Crime; and the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney
        General.  We will make copies available to others upon request.
        Page 19                   GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant
        Program Management B-281367 The major contributors to this report
        are acknowledged in appendix V.  If you or your staff have any
        questions on this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777.
        Richard M. Stana Associate Director, Administration of Justice
        Issues Page 20                  GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant
        Program Management Page 21    GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant
        Program Management Contents 1 Letter 26 Appendix I Locations and
        Numbers of Weed and Seed Sites Funded in Fiscal Year 1998 27
        Appendix II U.S. General Accounting Office Survey of Weed and Seed
        Sites 33 Appendix III             Atlanta, GA
        33 GAO Site Visit           Dyersburg, TN
        38 Philadelphia, PA
        41 Summaries                San Diego, CA
        45 Woburn, MA
        50 54 Appendix IV              GAO Comments
        69 Comments From the Department of Justice 70 Appendix V GAO
        Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments Table 1:  Weed and Seed Site
        Funding History for Fiscal                    9 Tables
        Years 1991-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Table 2: EOWS Fiscal Year
        1998 Funding Allocations                        10 Page 22
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Contents
        Table III.1:  Atlanta Weed and Seed Site's Funding
        34 History-FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Table III.2:
        Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site's                      35
        Funded Activities Table III.3:  Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed
        Site's                     36 Leveraging Efforts Table III.4:
        Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site's Funding                       38
        History-FY 1996-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Table III.5: Examples
        of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site's                    39 Funded
        Activities Table III.6: Examples of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site's
        40 Leveraging Efforts Table III.7:  Philadelphia Weed and Seed
        Site's Funding                    42 History-FY 1992-99 (1998
        Constant Dollars) Table III.8:  Examples of Philadelphia Weed and
        Seed                       43 Site's Funded Activities Table
        III.9: Examples of Philadelphia Weed and Seed
        44 Site's Leveraging Efforts Table III.10:  San Diego Weed and
        Seed Site's Funding                      46 History-FY 1992-98
        (1998 Constant Dollars) Table III.11:  Examples of San Diego Weed
        and Seed                         47 Site's Funded Activities Table
        III.12: Examples of San Diego Weed and Seed Site's
        48 Leveraging Efforts Table III.13:  Woburn Weed and Seed Site's
        Funding                         50 History-FY 1996-98 (1998
        Constant Dollars) Table III.14: Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed
        Site's                      51 Funded Activities Table III.15:
        Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed Site's                      52
        Leveraging Efforts Page 23                  GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed
        and Seed Grant Program Management Contents Abbreviations ATF
        Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms CUNAD       Community of
        United Neighbors Against Drugs DARE        Drug Awareness and
        Resistance Education DEA         Drug Enforcement Administration
        DEFY        Drug Education For Youth Mentoring Program DOJ
        Department of Justice EOWS        Executive Office of Weed and
        Seed FBI         Federal Bureau of Investigation FY
        fiscal year GBI         Georgia Bureau of Investigation GPRA
        Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 HIDTA       High
        Intensity Drug Trafficking Area HUD         Department of Housing
        and Urban Development INS         Immigration and Naturalization
        Service MCOPS       Mobile Community Outreach Police Stations
        NEMLEC      Northeastern Law Enforcement Council NPT
        Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty OAG         Office of Attorney
        General OIG         Office of the Inspector General OJP
        Office of Justice Programs TEAM        Together Everyone Achieves
        More UNAD        United Neighbors Against Drugs USAO        U.S.
        Attorney's Office USN         U.S. Department of the Navy Page 24
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Page 25
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix I
        Locations and Numbers of Weed and Seed Sites Funded in Fiscal Year
        1998 Page 26    GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program
        Management Appendix II U.S. General Accounting Office Survey of
        Weed and Seed Sites Page 27    GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant
        Program Management Appendix II U.S. General Accounting Office
        Survey of Weed and Seed Sites Page 28
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix II
        U.S. General Accounting Office Survey of Weed and Seed Sites Page
        29                      GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program
        Management Appendix II U.S. General Accounting Office Survey of
        Weed and Seed Sites Page 30                      GAO/GGD-99-110
        Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix II U.S. General
        Accounting Office Survey of Weed and Seed Sites Page 31
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix II
        U.S. General Accounting Office Survey of Weed and Seed Sites Page
        32                      GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program
        Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit Summaries BACKGROUND
        Atlanta, GA Atlanta, GA, has been a Weed and Seed site since 1992.
        Atlanta's target area includes two public housing developments,
        Thomasville Heights and Capitol Homes; their immediate surrounding
        areas; and a third community, Mechanicsville.  In fiscal year
        1998, the total population of the two public housing communities
        was 2,150, mainly African-American females with a median age of 23
        to 28 years.  Ten percent of the total population was on felony
        probation, and an additional 150 adults were under parole
        supervision. Mechanicsville was characterized as single-family
        homes surrounding a public housing community. Atlanta's Weed and
        Seed goals include to (1) reduce drug sales, drug trafficking
        activities, and drug-related violent crimes; (2) develop conflict
        resolution and prevention resources to reduce the incidence of
        violence in target communities; (3) provide creative options for
        young people to allow them alternatives to drinking and using
        drugs; (4) increase public safety awareness through
        antivictimization techniques; and (5) strengthen relationships
        with the communities to increase the number of reported crimes and
        assist in developing intelligence information for undercover use.
        This project site is initiating a multiagency program to
        coordinate the delivery of criminal justice and social services to
        eliminate violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug-related crime
        and to provide a safe environment for law-abiding citizens to
        live, work, and raise a family. Since fiscal year 1992, the
        Atlanta Weed and Seed program has been awarded about $3.7 million
        comprised of grant and asset forfeiture funds. As of December 31,
        1998, the Atlanta Weed and Seed program had used about $3 million.
        Grant awards ranged from a high of about $754,000 in fiscal year
        1993 to a low of $175,000 in fiscal year 1998.  Asset forfeiture
        funds were awarded in 5 years and ranged from a high of about
        $268,000 in fiscal year 1994 to a low of about $51,000 in fiscal
        year 1997.  See table III.1 for the funding history of the Atlanta
        Weed and Seed site. Page 33                   GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed
        and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries Table III.1:  Atlanta Weed and Seed Site's Funding
        History-FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Award amount
        Amount remaining Asset forfeiture                            Asset
        forfeiture Fiscal year                                       Grant
        funds                   funds              Grant funds
        funds 1992
        $691,094                      $0                     $0
        $0 1993                                                   754,116
        0                      0                   0 1994
        590,129                268,240                       0
        0 1995                                                   524,109
        262,055                 142,573                 191 1996
        205,761                102,881                 205,761
        24,615 1997
        0               50,505                      0              50,505
        1998                                                   175,000
        75,000                175,000              75,000 1999
        a                     a                      a                   a
        Total                                                $2,940,209
        $758,681                $523,334           $150,311 aAward is
        pending. Source:  EOWS unaudited data as of December 31, 1998.
        ACTIVITIES Atlanta's weed effort includes the following five-phase
        approach to reaching program goals: (1) community policing as an
        overall philosophy and as an institution; (2) intelligence
        collection and database preparation; (3) investigation; (4)
        arrests, seizures, and custody; and (5) incarceration and
        prosecution.  The seed effort seeks to develop multiagency
        community participation in substance abuse prevention and
        intervention activities. See table III.2 for examples of the types
        of activities funded by the Atlanta Weed and Seed program, listed
        by program element. Page 34                         GAO/GGD-99-110
        Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries Table III.2: Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site's
        Funded Activities Program element        Activity
        Partner                        Description Law enforcement
        Identification and           Atlanta's Weed Task            This
        joint operation targets street level dealers, gang arrest of drug
        dealers       Force, Drug Enforcement        members, and sources
        of supply to disrupt and dismantle and violent criminals,
        Administration (DEA), and      drug and violent crime gangs
        preying on target weapons case                 U.S. Attorney's
        Office         communities by using intelligence and criminal
        referrals
        information from sources within and outside the community.  In
        addition, the Weed task force is to refer cases involving weapons
        to the U.S. Attorney's office for consideration of federal
        prosecution. Community policing     Drug Education For
        U.S. Attorney's Office,        DEFY is a mentoring program adopted
        by the Youth (DEFY)                 U.S. Department of the
        Department of Justice (DOJ) for Weed and Seed in 1996. Mentoring
        Program            Navy (USN)                     DEFY is to be a
        comprehensive program that emphasizes the positive development of
        the mind, body, and spirit. Spring Break-                Fulton
        County Sheriff's        The Weed Task force sponsored the first
        annual Spring Together Everyone            Department, Atlanta
        Break TEAM building camp.  Students from the target site Achieves
        More                Police Department, Marta       spent 2
        intensive days with sports figures, HUD/OIG (TEAM)
        Police, Federal Bureau of      agents, law enforcement officers,
        and conflict resolution Investigation (FBI),           advocates.
        U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Office of
        Inspector General (HUD/OIG) Prevention,            Prevention
        through           Ballethnic Dance               The Ballethnic
        dance outreach program offers prevention intervention, and
        arts                         Company
        through the arts to students in the elementary and middle
        treatment
        schools. Family/Community             Viewpoint, Inc.
        Viewpoint, Inc., provides family/community prevention prevention
        workshops to the target areas.  A residential treatment workshops
        component is offered to 20 residents with 3 months of aftercare as
        an integral part of the recovery process. Community
        Teens, Crime, and            Americorp, Victim              The
        three communities completed a 12-week curriculum revitalization
        Community                    Witness Assistance             of
        Teens, Crime, and Community that was conducted by Curriculum
        Program                        Americorp students under the
        guidance of the Victim Witness Assistance Program.  Youths then
        select community projects.  For example, Mechanicsville youths
        identified the UJAMAA Cookie Corporation as their project and have
        purchased equipment necessary for their business operation.
        Source:  GAO survey and EOWS data. Page 35
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III
        GAO Site Visit Summaries LEVERAGING EFFORTS Atlanta's Weed and
        Seed program officials stated that an important goal for their
        program is to leverage additional resources from non-Executive
        Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) sources to become self-sustaining.
        During the course of our site visit, we identified several
        partnerships established by the Atlanta Weed and Seed program to
        leverage additional resources. These cooperative arrangements
        involved partners such as the United States Navy and the Georgia
        Bureau of Investigation. Table III.3 illustrates examples of
        leveraging efforts that were identified through our survey and
        site visit. Table III.3:  Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site's
        Leveraging Efforts Type of                        Name of
        partnership/cooperative        partner/cooperative arrangementa
        arrangement                           Description Federal
        government             USN                                   USN
        is to host the DEFY Summer Camp-a youth outreach program intended
        to promote positive life choices in 9-12 year olds through use of
        role models and education. HUD/OIG
        HUD/OIG agents work with the Weed task force to investigate crimes
        occurring in and around public housing developments and assist in
        the prosecution of individuals involved in criminal activity.
        Agents assist with the execution of warrants involving residents
        of public housing. State government               Georgia Bureau
        of                     GBI provides Drug Awareness and Resistance
        Education (DARE) Investigation (GBI)                   instructor
        training to Atlanta police officers and other law enforcement
        officers who are dedicated to the Atlanta Weed and Seed Project.
        In addition, it provides manpower support to the Atlanta Weed Task
        Force and share intelligence relating to criminal activities in or
        affecting the Weed and Seed neighborhoods. Local government
        Fulton County Sheriff's               Deputy sheriffs provide
        junior deputy training in Weed and Seed Department
        neighborhoods as well as at the Safe Haven Summer Program.  In
        addition, Fulton County deputies conduct TEAM building camp during
        public school spring break. Local community
        Viewpoint, Inc.                       Viewpoint conducts
        community/family education and prevention workshops for the three
        Weed and Seed communities.  In addition, Viewpoint is to provide a
        maximum of 20 slots for Weed and Seed residents identified as
        needing residential treatment at their residential care
        facilities. Local community,               Pyramid Communications
        Pyramid Communication Systems (in partnership with Atlanta
        University                     Systems, Inc.
        University's Economic Development Center) assists in the
        development and implementation of business plans for the cookie
        collaborative in Mechanicsville, the concession store for Capitol
        Homes, and the employment placement firm in Thomasville Heights.
        aNot all partnerships are shown because program officials told us
        that a complete list was not available. Source:  GAO survey and
        EOWS data. Page 36                           GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed
        and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries SITE'S PERFORMANCE MEASURES To date, Atlanta has not
        developed site-specific indicators to measure the results of its
        program.  However, officials said that under the leadership of the
        Mayor's office, they have developed a detailed weeding strategy
        that sets forth overall goals and roles of the community, law
        enforcement, and prosecution and have detailed innovative ideas
        for consideration.  Specific measures of success to be linked to
        these goals are under consideration. According to the U.S.
        Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, a seeding strategy
        has not yet been developed. Page 37                     GAO/GGD-
        99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO
        Site Visit Summaries BACKGROUND Dyersburg, TN Dyersburg, TN, a
        small rural community in northwest Tennessee with a population of
        about 23,000, was officially recognized as a Weed and Seed site in
        February 1996 and received its first year grant award in September
        1996 (see table III.4).  When the program began, two target
        neighborhoods were involved; now the site has expanded into four
        target neighborhoods. The steering committee used the following
        criteria to select target neighborhoods: (1) an increase in drug
        trafficking and potential for street gang activity, (2) an
        increase in crime statistics indicating violence, (3) juvenile
        crime rates, (4) a lack of adequate employment opportunities, (5)
        truancy and school drop-out rates, and (6) the potential for
        residents' involvement in and commitment to the program. Since
        fiscal year 1996, the Dyersburg Weed and Seed program was awarded
        about  $734,000, comprising grant and asset forfeiture fund
        awards.  As of December 31, 1998, the Dyersburg Weed and Seed
        program had used about $563,000.  Grant awards ranged from a high
        of $275,000 in fiscal year 1998 to a low of about $129,000 in
        fiscal year 1996.  The Dyersburg Weed and Seed program received
        one asset forfeiture fund award in fiscal year 1996 of about
        $103,000.  See table III.4 for the funding history of the
        Dyersburg Weed and Seed site. Table III.4:  Dyersburg Weed and
        Seed Site's Funding History-FY 1996-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)
        Award amount                                Amount remaining Asset
        forfeiture                               Asset forfeiture Fiscal
        year                                  Grant funds
        funds                Grant funds              funds 1996
        $128,601                   $102,881                        $0
        $0 1997                                                 227,273
        0                        0                   0 1998
        275,000                       0                  170,600
        0 1999                                                       a
        a                        a                   a Total
        $630,874                   $102,881                  $170,600
        $0 aAward is pending. Source:  EOWS unaudited data as of December
        31, 1998. ACTIVITIES Dyersburg provides a variety of Weed and Seed
        activities for children, youth, and adults at its safe haven,
        which is coordinated through the Dyersburg City Community Resource
        Center.  Table III.5 shows examples of the types of activities
        funded by the Dyersburg Weed and Seed program, listed by program
        element. Page 38                       GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and
        Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries Table III.5: Examples of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site's
        Funded Activities Program element          Activity
        Partner                     Description Law enforcement
        Computer-aided                     Dyersburg Police
        System to link the communications systems of Dyer dispatch system
        Department                  County law enforcement, fire, and
        ambulance systems. Juvenile Court                     Dyer County
        Courts          Expedite juvenile offenders court adjudication.
        Site Referee
        reported that by quicker adjudication it noted a substantial
        decrease in the number of juvenile cases. Community policing
        Supplies for citizen               Dyersburg Police
        Academy to familiarize its citizens with the police police academy
        Department                  department, its personnel, its goals,
        and the way it classes
        operates. Prevention,              Summer program
        YMCA                        Day camp for children, including
        breakfast and lunch, intervention, and        for boys and girls
        organized games, arts, songs, and character treatment
        development. Umoja After-School                 Ross United
        Methodist       This safe haven developed a complementary after-
        Enrichment Program                 Church
        school program designed to assist parents, churches, and public
        schools in enhancing the quality of life for children. Community
        Downtown Dyersburg                 The Council for Urban
        Community summit to design and implement an revitalization
        Revitalization Summit              Economic Development
        economic development strategy and prepare for new economic
        opportunities. Source:  GAO survey and EOWS data. LEVERAGING
        EFFORTS Dyersburg Weed and Seed program officials told us an
        important goal for their program is to leverage additional
        resources from non-EOWS sources to become self-sustaining. During
        the course of our site visit, we identified several partnerships
        established by the Dyersburg Weed and Seed program to leverage
        additional resources. These cooperative arrangements involved
        partners such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
        and local Dyersburg businesses.  Table III.6 illustrates examples
        of leveraging efforts that were identified through our survey and
        site visit. Page 39                          GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed
        and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries Table III.6: Examples of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site's
        Leveraging Efforts Type of                       Name of
        partnership/cooperative       partner/cooperative arrangementa
        arrangement                           Description Federal
        government            DEA and ATF                           Site
        reported that participation with these agencies has enabled more
        law enforcement coverage with its small police force and resulted
        in prosecutions and convictions of over 25 major drug dealers in
        northwest Tennessee. State government              Tennessee
        Bureau of                   Also was a partner in above
        investigations. Investigations Local government
        Dyersburg School System               Provides a staff member at
        no cost to help run safe haven program. Dyersburg Police
        Provides a staff member at no cost to administer the Weed and
        Department                            Seed program. Dyersburg
        Police                      Doubled size of bike patrol-now has a
        two-person bike patrol team Department
        in all four Weed and Seed target areas. Target area resident
        Residents rented a house to the City of Dyersburg for 10 years at
        1 dollar per year plus property tax.  House is to be used as a
        mini- police precinct in target area. Private sector
        Local businesses                      Provide in-kind donations of
        food and other supplies to various Weed and Seed functions, such
        as picnics and barbecues. aNot all partnerships are shown because
        program officials told us a complete list was not available.
        Source:  GAO survey and EOWS data. SITE'S PERFORMANCE MEASURES
        Dyersburg does not use site-specific indicators to measure the
        results of its program.  However, in response to our survey, the
        site coordinator reported that the site used a variety of methods
        to measure program success, and that evaluation was a regular and
        ongoing part of the program.  First, the local steering committee
        met monthly to review and the program.  Second, the police chief
        reviewed the program and offered regular input.  Third, the site
        coordinator and safe haven coordinator regularly reviewed
        activities funded or assisted by the Weed and Seed program to
        ensure that they were meeting program requirements.  While these
        methods might prove useful to local officials, they do not measure
        outcomes or results. Page 40                           GAO/GGD-99-
        110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site
        Visit Summaries BACKGROUND Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia, PA, was
        officially recognized as one of the original Weed and Seed sites
        in 1992.  The Philadelphia target area is bounded on the east by
        Front Street, on the west by Fifth Street, on the north by
        Westmoreland Street, and on the south by Berks Street.  In
        addition, the target area encompasses the Philadelphia 25th and
        26th police districts. The target area has a higher proportion of
        the population under 18 than any other area of Philadelphia.  The
        most prevalent illegal drugs of choice have been cocaine and
        heroin, and the continued focus of the Weed and Seed initiative is
        toward both major traffickers of illegal drugs as well as those
        engaged in street sales. The continuing goal of this site is to
        revitalize the neighborhood and provide the opportunity for the
        residents in the community to live, work, and raise children in a
        safe and clean environment.  Objectives for this site are to (1)
        control violent and drug-related crime; (2) enhance public safety
        and security by mobilizing neighborhood residents; (3) create a
        healthy and supportive environment by preventing and combating
        crime, drug use, unemployment, illiteracy, and disease; and (4)
        revitalize the neighborhood. Since fiscal year 1992, the
        Philadelphia Weed and Seed program has been awarded about $4
        million for the program comprising grant and asset forfeiture fund
        awards.  As of December 31, 1998, the Philadelphia Weed and Seed
        program had used about $3.6 million.  Grant awards ranged from a
        high of about $1.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to a low of about
        $177,000 in fiscal year 1997.  Asset forfeiture funds were awarded
        in 5 years and ranged from a high of about $288,000 in fiscal year
        1994 to a low of about $103,000 in fiscal year 1996.  See table
        III.7 for the funding history of the Philadelphia Weed and Seed
        site. Page 41                     GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed
        Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit Summaries
        Table III.7:  Philadelphia Weed and Seed Site's Funding History-FY
        1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Award amount
        Amount remaining Asset forfeiture
        Asset forfeiture Fiscal year
        Grant funds                                          funds
        Grant funds                                         funds 1992
        $1,240,135                                               $0
        $0                                      $0 1993
        0                                        0
        0                                      0 1994
        536,480                                   288,240
        0                                      0 1995
        524,109                                   262,055
        0                                      0 1996
        205,761                                   102,881
        0                                    86 1997
        176,768                                   176,768
        40,813 1998
        308,588                                   170,000
        133,588                                 170,000 1999
        a                                        a
        a                                       a Total
        $2,991,841                                   $999,944
        $133,588                                $344,486 aAward is
        pending. Source:  EOWS unaudited data as of December 31, 1998.
        ACTIVITIES Philadelphia's Weed and Seed site activities are
        focused on strategies to assist children and youths in becoming
        productive and law-abiding citizens; free them from drug and
        alcohol abuse; establish safe haven multiservice education centers
        (four are currently operating)1 in drug- and crime-free
        environments; continue Community Resource Centers that provide an
        array of social services; and conduct pr provide antidrug
        marches/vigils, neighborhood clean-ups, employment training,
        community organizing, youth programs, volunteer recruitment, and
        information and referral.  Table III.8 shows examples of
        activities funded by the Philadelphia Weed and Seed site, listed
        by program element. 1The four Philadelphia, PA, safe havens are
        the Community of United Neighbors Against Drugs (CUNAD), Fairhill
        Community Center, Norris Square Neighborhood Project, and United
        Neighbors Against Drugs (UNAD).  Typical activities in these safe
        havens include tutoring; summer day camps; health fairs; nutrition
        education; prevention through providing substance abuse and child
        abuse information; and recreational activities, such as baseball,
        basketball, and summer olympic games. Page 42
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III
        GAO Site Visit Summaries Table III.8:  Examples of Philadelphia
        Weed and Seed Site's Funded Activities Program element
        Activity                Partner(s)
        Description Law enforcement       Ongoing                 DEA,
        FBI, ATF, U.S.                 These organizations are to conduct
        collaborative investigations and      Attorney's Office (USAO),
        investigations among law enforcement agencies.  In prosecutions
        Office of Attorney General          addition, community residents
        provide information to the (OAG), Immigration and
        police mobile units as well as provide anonymous Naturalization
        Service (INS),       information to officers. and the Philadelphia
        Police Department Community             CUNAD antidrug
        Safe Havens, Philadelphia           These organizations
        participate in and support antidrug policing              march
        and rally         Police Department, Schools,         marches.
        Neighborhood Organizations, Health Maintenance Organizations, and
        citizen volunteers Prevention,           Referral services,
        Community groups,                   These groups provide training
        and workshops relating to intervention, and     preparing to begin
        Alcoholics Anonymous,               drug and alcohol treatment and
        prevention.  Residents treatment             prevention and
        Narcotics Anonymous,                become involved by taking part
        in the workshops and treatment               Target City Service,
        and            training provided and accepting referrals for drug
        workshops in other      Central Intake Unit
        rehabilitation programs. Weed and Seed areas Conflict resolution
        Schools, Shalom, Safe               Prevention specialists teach
        conflict resolution in in schools              Havens, AmeriCorps,
        schools.  Residents become involved by participating in DARE
        programs, etc.                 the programs offered in the schools
        for their youths and volunteering in the community and safe
        havens. Community             Creating a clean        Community
        groups, parents,          The goal of this activity is to motivate
        parents, youths, revitalization        and attractive
        youths, Phila More Beautiful,       schools, and businesses to
        work together toward a environment             Pennsylvania Army
        National          clean and viable community.  Youth volunteer to
        Guard, AmeriCorps,                  participate to take part in
        area clean ups and attend and city services
        community service projects to earn community service hours, and
        residents clean area in front of homes. Source:  GAO survey and
        EOWS data. LEVERAGING EFFORTS Philadelphia's Weed and Seed Program
        officials told us an important goal for their program is to
        leverage additional resources from non-EOWS sources to become
        self-sustaining. During the course of our site visit, we
        identified several partnerships established by the Philadelphia
        Weed and Seed program to leverage additional resources. These
        cooperative arrangements involved partners, such as the
        Pennsylvania Army National Guard and Villanova University. Table
        III.9 illustrates examples of leveraging efforts that were
        identified through our survey and site visit. Page 43
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III
        GAO Site Visit Summaries Table III.9: Examples of Philadelphia
        Weed and Seed Site's Leveraging Efforts Type of
        Name of partnership/cooperative      partner/cooperative
        arrangementa                 arrangement
        Description Federal government           DOJ's High Intensity
        DOJ's HIDTA assesses the extent of and change in the Drug
        Trafficking Area                     demographics of drug-using
        offenders and is to create an (HIDTA) Program
        integrated and collaborative intelligence center to focus on
        narcotics trade in the area. State government
        Pennsylvania Army                         This partner provides
        conflict resolution training, camping trips, National Guard
        and demand reduction programs and assists in coordinating the DEFY
        program. Public, private, and         Phil-Abundance, Greater
        These organizations provide food, drinks, and snacks to safe
        nonprofit agencies           Philadelphia Food Bank,
        havens and after-school programs at no cost. and Coca-Cola
        University                   Swarthmore College, Villanova
        Universities provide volunteers to assist with safe haven
        activities University, Edinboro University,          and other
        projects, such as smoke detector installations and clean and
        Eastern College                       ups. City government
        Philadelphia Police Department            The department provides
        police officers to patrol the Weed and Seed area on bikes, conduct
        special investigations, train block captains, etc. aNot all
        partnerships are shown because program officials told us a
        complete list was not available. Source:  GAO survey and EOWS
        data. SITE'S PERFORMANCE MEASURES In response to our survey, the
        site coordinator reported that this site uses a variety of methods
        to measure success in achieving its Weed and Seed program goals
        and objectives.  Methods cited include (1) conducting pretests and
        posttests for various programs implemented, (2) using sign-in
        sheets for various activities to monitor trends in community
        involvement, (3) conducting youth and parent surveys, and (4)
        using various police statistics to measure the success of
        operations. In addition, Temple University completed an evaluation
        of the Philadelphia Weed and Seed project in the fall of 1997,
        reporting the program's impact in the community between 1992 and
        1997.  Since the completion of this evaluation, it has been shared
        with the Attorney General of the United States and discussed with
        city officials as well as discussed at Weed and Seed Steering
        Committee meetings.  According to Philadelphia Weed and Seed site
        officials, they have begun to take action as a result of this
        evaluation.  For example, the Weed and Seed site hosted an 1-day
        "Getting Back to the Strategy" session in March 1998.  The purpose
        of this session was to bring representatives from all Weed and
        Seed components together as a group to make the Weed and Seed
        target area a clean and safe place to live and raise children.
        Page 44                            GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed
        Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit Summaries
        BACKGROUND San Diego, CA San Diego, CA, was officially recognized
        as a Weed and Seed site in 1992. The Weed and Seed target area in
        San Diego includes three of the six neighborhoods that comprise
        the central sector of the southeast San Diego area.  San Diego's
        target area has a total population of 22,137 (8,494 youths 17
        years or younger; 13,643 adults 18 years and older).  The total
        number of households is about 5,000, and the ethnic composition is
        approximately 54 percent African American, 33 percent Latino, and
        13 percent other.  The median family income is $18,062, and about
        39 percent of the total population is below poverty level. During
        our visit to the San Diego Weed and Seed site, we and the EOWS
        program monitor who accompanied us identified a number of problems
        affecting the site's successful implementation of the Weed and
        Seed program.  One of the problems we identified was the lack of
        direct U.S. Attorney and resident involvement in the steering
        committee.  EOWS requires that the U.S. Attorney be involved with
        the steering committee and that residents be actively involved.
        On the basis of our observations during our site visit and the
        report from the EOWS program monitor, it appeared that the
        residents in the target area and the city agencies in the
        community did not always agree on how the Weed and Seed program
        should be implemented in San Diego.  The site coordinator told us
        there was a lack of communication among the U.S. Attorney's
        office, the Mayor's office, and community residents on how Weed
        and Seed funds should be allocated and what activities and
        services should be provided to the target area. During the course
        of our review, EOWS decided not to qualify San Diego for fiscal
        year 1999 funding on the basis of the above observations and their
        own analysis of the San Diego Weed and Seed site.  As a result,
        the San Diego City officials and the U.S. Attorney's office have
        renewed their commitment to the San Diego Weed and Seed site.
        They agreed to work together to restructure the existing Executive
        Steering Committee and provide the site with improved direction to
        ensure its future success in implementing the Weed and Seed
        program in San Diego. Since fiscal year 1992, the San Diego Weed
        and Seed program has been awarded about $3.5 million for the
        program comprised of grant and asset forfeiture funds.  As of
        December 31, 1998, the San Diego Weed and Seed program had used
        about $2.9 million.  Grant awards ranged from a high of about
        $691,000 in fiscal year 1992 to a low of about $51,000 in fiscal
        year 1997.  Asset forfeiture funds were awarded in 3 years and
        ranged from a Page 45                     GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and
        Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries high of about $268,000 in fiscal year 1994 to a low of
        about $103,000 fiscal year 1996.  See table III.10 for the funding
        history of the San Diego Weed and Seed site. Table III.10:  San
        Diego Weed and Seed Site's Funding History-FY 1992-98 (1998
        Constant Dollars) Award amount
        Amount remaining Asset forfeiture
        Asset forfeiture Fiscal year
        Grant funds                       funds               Grant funds
        funds 1992
        $691,094                        $0                         $0
        $0 1993                                                   534,577
        0                          0                      0 1994
        590,129                 268,240                            0
        0 1995                                                   524,109
        262,055                      63,958                   17,820 1996
        205,761                 102,881                     101,728
        102,881 1997
        50,505                         0                    50,505
        0 1998                                                   225,000
        0                   225,000                       0 Total
        $2,821,175               $633,176                   $441,191
        $120,701 Note:  The San Diego Weed and Seed site was not offered
        funding for fiscal year 1999. Source:  EOWS unaudited data as of
        December 31, 1998. ACTIVITIES San Diego provides a variety of Weed
        and Seed activities, such as Neighborhood Policing Teams, which
        conduct bike and foot patrols of the community, and a safe haven,
        which teaches children about computers. Table III.11 shows other
        examples of the types of activities funded by the San Diego Weed
        and Seed program, listed by program element. Page 46
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III
        GAO Site Visit Summaries Table III.11:  Examples of San Diego Weed
        and Seed Site's Funded Activities Program element       Activity
        Partner(s)                      Description Law enforcement
        Violent Crimes      San Diego Police                The San Diego
        Police Department coordinates and works Task Force and
        Department, INS, ATF,           with the task forces to arrest and
        adjudicate violent criminal other local law     FBI, DEA,
        California            offenders for activities such as gang
        involvement, drug enforcement task    Department of
        trafficking, and car theft in the Weed and Seed target area.
        forces              Corrections, San Diego District Attorney, San
        Diego County Probation, and San Diego City Attorney Community
        Neighborhood        San Diego Police                The NPT works
        with local residents to address community policing
        Policing Teams      Department                      concerns,
        including drug and gang activity, public (NPT)
        intoxication, code compliance, properties in need of boarding,
        securing, and other nuisance and crime-related activities.  The
        NPT uses foot and bike patrols and substations as a means of
        monitoring the target area. Prevention,           Safe Haven
        Children's/Youth Choir, Inc.    A course for children in grades 6-
        12 designed to teach them intervention, and     Computer
        about the different parts and functions of computers. treatment
        Assembly                                            Children learn
        how to assemble and operate a computer, Course
        including installing and using software. Safe Haven Arts     Arts
        and culture instructor     A course for children ages 9-13
        designed to provide them and Culture
        with art instruction, such as basic drawing techniques, and Course
        develop art work to be displayed at a "Community Pride Day" in the
        Weed and Seed target area. Community             Community pride
        Various                         A community pride event intended
        to bring target area revitalization        events
        residents together in a celebration of diversity, unity, and
        community pride.  An example of an event is to hold a festival at
        one of the target area parks providing entertainment, food, fun
        and games, music, and other types of entertainment. Source:  GAO
        survey and EOWS data. LEVERAGING EFFORTS An important stated goal
        for San Diego's Weed and Seed program is to leverage additional
        resources from non-EOWS sources to become self- sustaining. During
        the course of our site visit, we identified several partnerships
        established by the San Diego Weed and Seed program to leverage
        additional resources. These cooperative arrangements involved
        partners such as the San Diego Police Department and the San Diego
        public schools. Table III.12 illustrates examples of leveraging
        efforts that were identified through our survey and site visit.
        Page 47                        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant
        Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit Summaries Table
        III.12: Examples of San Diego Weed and Seed Site's Leveraging
        Efforts Type of                      Name of
        partnership/cooperative      partner/cooperative arrangementa
        arrangement                                 Description Federal,
        state, and          A variety of federal, state, and
        The San Diego Police Department coordinates as well as county
        governments           county law enforcement agencies
        participates in task force operations not funded by the Weed and
        Seed Program. Federal, state, county,      A variety of federal,
        state, county,        A variety of programs (computer assembly
        course, arts and and city governments,        city government, and
        community              culture class, etc.) and services (youth
        mentoring, job and private and nonprofit    and quasi-governmental
        agencies             assistance) are offered through partnerships
        with a number of agencies
        agencies at cost or below market cost to the Weed and Seed
        program. Local government             San Diego Police Department
        and             The police department deploys paid staff,
        volunteers, and patrol City of San Diego
        officers to the target area.  The city provides a satellite
        office, for use by the police department, dedicated to the Weed
        and Seed target area. City of San Diego
        The San Diego City Parks and Recreation service offers a rent-
        free facility to the Weed and Seed program for use as a safe
        haven.  In addition, the city offers other administrative services
        with minimal overhead costs. City and nonprofit           San
        Diego public schools, City of           Facilities are provided
        rent-free for a number of Weed and Seed sector
        San Diego, and a number of                  activities. community
        agencies aNot all partnerships are shown because program officials
        told us a complete list was not available. Source:  GAO survey and
        EOWS data. SITE'S PERFORMANCE MEASURES In response to our survey,
        the Weed and Seed site coordinator reported that Weed and Seed
        efforts in the San Diego target area were evaluated through a
        number of different methods. Evaluations of weeding efforts
        included (1) performing a comparative analysis of crime statistics
        compiled for the target area; (2) tracking police actions
        established by residents, community organizations, and businesses;
        and (3) maintaining statistics on community contacts made and
        events attended by police officers. For the seeding efforts, these
        methods included (1) requiring monthly activity reports and
        conducting periodic site visits of all Weed and Seed programs in
        the target area; (2) checking programs' compliance with the
        contracted scope(s) of services, which are to be based on Weed and
        Seed programs' goals and objectives; (3) tracking the number of
        participants in the programs; (4) evaluating the quality and/or
        duration of services provided to participants; and (5) evaluating
        program participant service outcomes and their evaluations of the
        programs. Page 48                           GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed
        and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries While these measures might be useful in better
        understanding the activities funded by the San Diego Weed and Seed
        program, they primarily measure the level of activities, not
        program results.  Further, while the analysis of crime statistics
        appears to be more outcome oriented, it is difficult to determine
        a direct link between a reduction in crime rates and Weed and Seed
        activities. Page 49                     GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and
        Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit
        Summaries BACKGROUND Woburn, MA Woburn, MA, has been officially
        recognized as a Weed and Seed site since 1996.  The target area is
        made up of the downtown area of Woburn and was selected due to the
        high crime rate and drug sales and the high rate of public housing
        developments and publicly assisted housing. During the course of
        our review, EOWS decided not to qualify Woburn for fiscal year
        1999 funding.  According to EOWS, Woburn had not submitted the
        required quarterly financial reports and semiannual progress
        reports that are required by its grant award.  However, Woburn
        would be eligible to be qualified for grant funds in fiscal year
        2000 as long as the requirements of its previous awards are met.
        The Woburn Weed and Seed program was awarded about $305,000 in
        grant fund awards for the program for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
        The awards were about $177,000 in fiscal year 1997 and about
        $129,000 in fiscal year 1996.  As of December 31, 1998, the Woburn
        Weed and Seed program had used about $213,000. The Woburn Weed and
        Seed site was awarded $50,000 in asset forfeiture funds in fiscal
        year 1996.  However, in fiscal year 1999, EOWS deobligated these
        funds since the Woburn Weed and Seed site was unable to use these
        funds for a law enforcement operation.  See table III.13 for
        funding history of the Woburn Weed and Seed site. Table III.13:
        Woburn Weed and Seed Site's Funding History-FY 1996-98 (1998
        Constant Dollars) Award amount
        Amount remaining Asset forfeiture
        Asset forfeiture Fiscal year
        Grant funds                        funds         Grant funds
        funds 1996
        $128,601                            a                    $0
        a 1997
        176,768                         $0                92,457
        $0 1998
        b                        0                       b
        0 Total
        $305,369                          $0               $92,457
        $0 Note:  The Woburn Weed and Seed site was not offered funding
        for fiscal year 1999. aThe Woburn Weed and Seed site was awarded
        $50,000 in asset forfeiture funds.  However, in fiscal year 1999,
        EOWS deobligated these funds since the Woburn Weed and Seed site
        was unable to use these funds for a law enforcement operation.
        bThe Woburn Weed and Seed site was offered funding for fiscal year
        1998, but the site did not meet grant application requirements
        Source:  EOWS unaudited data as of December 31, 1998. Page 50
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III
        GAO Site Visit Summaries ACTIVITIES Woburn provides a variety of
        Weed and Seed activities, such as a safe haven, which includes
        helping children with homework assignments, and a Job Links career
        enhancement program, which provides job readiness training for
        adults.  Table III.14 shows other examples of the types of
        activities funded by the Woburn Weed and Seed program, listed by
        program element. Table III.14: Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed
        Site's Funded Activities Program element      Activity
        Partner                         Description Law enforcement
        Drug investigations      Woburn Police Department,       A
        coordinated operation conducted by the Woburn Northeastern
        Massachusetts Police Department, NEMLEC, and DEA.  Funds are to
        Law Enforcement Council         be used for police overtime.
        (NEMLEC) Drug Task Force, and DEA Community            Community
        policing       Woburn Police                   A partnership
        between community police officers and policing
        Department                      residents to reduce crime and fear
        of crime through enforcement and community problem solving, using
        problem-oriented policing and empowering residents to create a
        safe neighborhood for themselves.  Funds are to be used for police
        overtime. Prevention,          Safe Haven/Kids          North
        Suburban YMCA             After-school educational/recreational
        program run in the intervention, and    Club
        housing developments for children ages 5-10.  Focus is treatment
        on developing reading and social interaction skills and
        alcohol/drug/safety education. Safe Haven/After-        Shamrock
        Elementary             Assists youths with homework assignments,
        classroom school program           School
        difficulties, and problems associated with language barriers.
        Other components include drama, art, and language clubs and
        English as a Second Language program for parents. Youth Tracking
        Woburn Housing Authority,       Assists community professionals
        and community police Program-                 Woburn Police
        officers in tracking high-risk youths ages 12-17.  Youth
        mentor/coordinator       Department                      tracker
        also tracks youth crime, truancy, and youths in need of assistance
        and support. Community            Job Links career
        Community Services              Provides rsum writing, career
        counseling, interview revitalization       enhancement
        Network                         skills, and job readiness training
        for adults. program Source:  GAO survey and EOWS data. LEVERAGING
        EFFORTS An important stated goal for Woburn's Weed and Seed
        program is to leverage additional resources from non-EOWS sources
        to become self- sustaining. During the course of our site visit,
        we identified several partnerships established by the Woburn Weed
        and Seed program to leverage additional resources. These
        cooperative arrangements involved Page 51
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix III
        GAO Site Visit Summaries partners such as the Woburn Housing
        Authority and the Boys and Girls Club. Table III.15 illustrates
        examples of leveraging efforts identified through our survey and
        site visit. Table III.15: Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed Site's
        Leveraging Efforts Type of                      Name of
        partnership/cooperative      partner/cooperative arrangementa
        arrangement                         Description State government
        Commonwealth of                     Cooperative work arrangement
        with the state to conduct an evaluation Massachusetts' Executive
        of Woburn's Weed and Seed site. Office of Public Safety State and
        local              City of Woburn                      Using state
        funds, the city hired a substance abuse counselor to act
        governments
        as the liaison for drug prevention efforts between the city and
        other entities.  This position was created as a direct result of
        Weed and Seed efforts. Local government             Woburn Housing
        Authority            Provides assistance in administering the Weed
        and Seed grant and provides space for a variety of Weed and Seed
        activities. Woburn Police Department            Provides space to
        house Weed and Seed programs and allows their vehicles to be used
        for Weed and Seed activities at no charge. Nonprofit sector
        Boys and Girls Club and             Provide staff and facilities
        for Weed and Seed-sponsored activities. YMCA aNot all partnerships
        are shown because program officials told us a complete list was
        not available. Source:  GAO survey and EOWS data. SITE'S
        PERFORMANCE MEASURES In response to our survey and our site visit,
        the Weed and Seed site coordinator reported that the Weed and Seed
        efforts in the Woburn target area were evaluated through a number
        of different methods.  The indicators used to measure the success
        of law enforcement efforts included tracking (1) the number and
        types of crime within the target area, (2) the number of drug
        arrests, and (3) the number of drug cases that have been started
        in the target area.  For the community-policing element, the
        indicators used included monitoring the information flow between
        Community Oriented Police officers and narcotics officers. For the
        prevention, intervention, and treatment element, the indicators
        used included tracking the attendance and observing the activities
        at the various Weed and Seed programs.  As for the neighborhood
        revitalization element, the indicators used included tracking the
        number of jobs that were found by participants in the Weed and
        Seed program and calculating the increased economic activity
        within the target area as a result of the Weed and Seed effort.
        Page 52                           GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed
        Grant Program Management Appendix III GAO Site Visit Summaries
        While these measures might be useful in better understanding the
        activities funded by the Woburn Weed and Seed program, they
        primarily measure the level of activities, not program results.
        Further, while the analysis of crime statistics and tracking the
        number of jobs found by Weed and Seed program participants appear
        to be more outcome oriented, it is difficult to determine a direct
        link between these indicators Weed and Seed activities. Page 53
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice Note:  GAO comments
        supplementing those in the report text appear at the end of this
        appendix. Page 54    GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program
        Management Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Justice See
        comment 1. Page 55                    GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed
        Grant Program Management Appendix IV Comments From the Department
        of Justice See comment 2. Page 56                    GAO/GGD-99-
        110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV Comments
        From the Department of Justice Page 57                    GAO/GGD-
        99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV Comments
        From the Department of Justice See comment 1. Page 58
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice Page 59
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice See comment 1. Page 60
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice Page 61
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice See comment 3. Page 62
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice See comment 4. Page 63
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice See comment 4. See comment
        5. See comment 1. Page 64                    GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed
        and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV Comments From the
        Department of Justice See comment 6. Page 65
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice Page 66
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice Page 67
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice Page 68
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Appendix IV
        Comments From the Department of Justice The following are GAO's
        comments on the Department of Justice letter dated July 1, 1999.
        1. DOJ suggested that (1) our report title should be changed to
        reflect our GAO Comments    mandate to review the efficiency and
        effectiveness of the Weed and Seed Program and (2) some of our
        report captions should be modified.  We believe our report title
        and captions better convey the message of our report, therefore,
        we made no modifications. 2. DOJ stated that the Grant Manager's
        Memoranda outline the basis and rationale for funding decisions.
        Our review of the Grant Manager's Memoranda showed that they did
        not provide a basis and rationale for funding decisions but rather
        provided a project overview, including purpose, goals and
        objectives, strategy, and project management.  Further, EOWS
        management officials told us the narrative on this form is the
        same for all grantees; therefore, we do not believe these
        memoranda communicate the basis and rationale for qualifying new
        and existing sites for funding. 3. DOJ stated that we are
        suggesting that it routinely perform impact assessments of program
        components.  We are not suggesting that EOWS routinely perform
        impact assessments.  Our statement is meant as an example of a
        possible outcome measure. 4. DOJ stated that our report did not
        appropriately highlight positive program results.  However, in the
        results in brief section we note that selected sites had taken
        actions toward self-sustainment as well as highlight the
        satisfaction that most local officials had with the activities
        funded by Weed and Seed.  These results are discussed in greater
        detail in the body of this report.  In addition, our survey
        results, in their entirety, are included in appendix II of the
        report. 5. DOJ requested that the final report be revised to
        reflect the controls that for years have been in place to document
        program management and funding decisions.  We did not make this
        change for the reasons discussed in the agency comments section of
        this report. Page 69                    GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and
        Seed Grant Program Management Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff
        Acknowledgments Weldon McPhail, (202) 512-8644 GAO Contacts Samuel
        S. Van Wagner Acknowledgments    Dennise R. Stickley Brian J.
        Lipman David P. Alexander Michelle A. Sager Page 70
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Page 71
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Page 72
        GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management Ordering
        Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is
        free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
        following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out
        to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and
        MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more
        copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
        Order by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050
        Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of
        4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
        Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using
        fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO
        issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive
        facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
        days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A
        recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
        lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the
        INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
        info@www.gao.gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
        http://www.gao.gov United States General Accounting Office
        Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001     Postage & Fees Paid GAO
        Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
        Address Correction Requested (186771)

    *** End of document. ***