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:
    [email protected] 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. ***