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. ***