FEDERAL GRANTS

More Can Be Done to

Improve Weed and

Seed Program

Management

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

GAO/GGD-99-110

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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 selfsustaining 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.
B-281367

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

EOWS has not established an adequate internal control requiring that

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

 

1

The 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.

Results in Brief
B-281367

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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

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

 

2

EOWS 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.

3

The Weed and Seed fiscal year 1991 pilot sites were Kansas City, MO; Omaha, NE; and Trenton, NJ.

Background
B-281367

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.
B-281367

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

To assess how EOWS manages the Weed and Seed Program, we reviewed

(1) the criteria used to determine which new and existing sites should be

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.

Scope and

Methodology
B-281367

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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

existing site qualification for funding decisions always be fully

documented. Because of this, EOWS cannot ensure that it is making the

best allocation of available funds when it makes these decisions.

The 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. 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.

 4

The 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.

EOWS’ Internal

Control Weakness

Hampers Weed and

Seed Program

Management
B-281367

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

EOWS’ new site funding qualification decisions were not always fully

documented. EOWS management officials were able to provide us with

some documentation for 12 of the 70 fiscal year 1999 new site funding

qualification decisions we reviewed. However, for 5 of these 12 decisions

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.

New Site Funding

Qualification Decisions

Were Not Always

Documented
B-281367

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

EOWS did not always fully document how it made its decisions on whether

to qualify the 177 existing sites for continued funding and special project5

funding. Although EOWS officials could provide us with documentation for

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.

 5

Special 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.

Funding Qualification

Decisions Were Not Always

Documented
B-281367

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Fiscal year

Appropriation

budget

Asset forfeiture

budgeta

Combined EOWS

appropriation and

asset

forfeiture budget

Number of

funded sites

Average site

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

Table 1: Weed and Seed Site Funding History for Fiscal Years 1991-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)
B-281367

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.

Funding Amount

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.

Table 2: EOWS Fiscal Year 1998

Funding Allocations
B-281367

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

EOWS did not always ensure that local Weed and Seed sites complied with

critical grant requirements. For example, on the basis of our review of the

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

the required progress reports. In addition, EOWS grant monitors did not

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.

EOWS Did Not Ensure

That Weed and Seed

Sites Met Grant

Requirements
B-281367

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

An important goal of the Weed and Seed is the self-sustainment of local

Weed and Seed sites through the leveraging of additional resources from

non-EOWS sources. However, EOWS has not developed criteria to

determine (1) when sites have become self-sustaining and (2) when to

reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed grant funds. Although many grantees

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

Program, EOWS has not developed specific criteria to determine when

sites have become self-sustaining or determined the progress sites had

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

 

6

These numbers add to more than 76 because respondents were allowed to identify more than 1

partnership.

EOWS Lacks Criteria

on Continued Funding

for Sites That Become

Self-Sustaining

EOWS Has Not Determined

When Sites Become SelfSustaining
B-281367

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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

which a site has become self-sustaining and whether funds could be

reduced or withdrawn. EOWS management officials said that, to date, no

site’s funding has been reduced or withdrawn as a result of the site’s

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

respond to GPRA. GPRA seeks to shift the focus of federal management

and decisionmaking away from activities performed, to focusing on results

or outcomes of activities undertaken. However, the indicators EOWS used

to measure the success of the Weed and Seed Program still generally track

activities rather than results or outcomes. Weed and Seed sites also used

other indicators to measure the results of their individual programs, but

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.

 

7

Technically, it is the community grantee that reapplies for official recognition, not the site.

EOWS Has Not Determined

When to Reduce or

Withdraw Weed and Seed

Funds

EOWS and Weed and

Seed Sites’

Performance

Indicators Generally

Did Not Measure

Program Success
B-281367

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

In an attempt to measure the results of sites’ weeding efforts, EOWS tracks

law enforcement information, such as community-policing activities.

EOWS requires each site to have a community-policing component to its

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 drugrelated 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

Weed and Seed Indicators

Generally Measure

Activities, Not Results
B-281367

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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

measure program results, most of the local officials with whom we spoke

during our site visits were very satisfied with the activities funded by the

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 enforcementfunded 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.

Local Participants Reported

Satisfaction With the

Programs
B-281367

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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

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

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;

Conclusions

Recommendations
B-281367

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

• 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

report and offered additional information to explain the status of the

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.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-281367

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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 selfsustainability. 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
B-281367

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.
B-281367

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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 21 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management
Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 26

Locations and

Numbers of Weed and

Seed Sites Funded in

Fiscal Year 1998

Appendix II 27

U.S. General

Accounting Office

Survey of Weed and

Seed Sites

33

Atlanta, GA 33

Dyersburg, TN 38

Philadelphia, PA 41

San Diego, CA 45

Woburn, MA 50

Appendix III

GAO Site Visit

Summaries

54

GAO Comments 69 Appendix IV

Comments From the

Department of Justice

Appendix V 70

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

Table 1: Weed and Seed Site Funding History for Fiscal

Years 1991-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Tables 9

Table 2: EOWS Fiscal Year 1998 Funding Allocations 10
Contents

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Table III.1: Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s Funding

History—FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)

34

Table III.2: Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s

Funded Activities

35

Table III.3: Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s

Leveraging Efforts

36

Table III.4: Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site’s Funding

History—FY 1996-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)

38

Table III.5: Examples of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site’s

Funded Activities

39

Table III.6: Examples of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site’s

Leveraging Efforts

40

Table III.7: Philadelphia Weed and Seed Site’s Funding

History—FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)

42

Table III.8: Examples of Philadelphia Weed and Seed

Site’s Funded Activities

43

Table III.9: Examples of Philadelphia Weed and Seed

Site’s Leveraging Efforts

44

Table III.10: San Diego Weed and Seed Site’s Funding

History—FY 1992-98 (1998 Constant Dollars)

46

Table III.11: Examples of San Diego Weed and Seed

Site’s Funded Activities

47

Table III.12: Examples of San Diego Weed and Seed Site’s

Leveraging Efforts

48

Table III.13: Woburn Weed and Seed Site’s Funding

History—FY 1996-98 (1998 Constant Dollars)

50

Table III.14: Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed Site’s

Funded Activities

51

Table III.15: Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed Site’s

Leveraging Efforts

52
Contents

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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 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

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

BACKGROUND

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.

Atlanta, GA
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Award amount Amount remaining

Fiscal year Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

funds Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

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

a

Award 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.

Table III.1: Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Program element Activity Partner Description

Law enforcement Identification and

arrest of drug dealers

and violent criminals,

weapons case

referrals

Atlanta’s Weed Task

Force, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), and

U.S. Attorney’s Office

This joint operation targets street level dealers, gang

members, and sources of supply to disrupt and dismantle

drug and violent crime gangs preying on target

communities by using intelligence and criminal

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

Youth (DEFY)

Mentoring Program

U.S. Attorney’s Office,

U.S. Department of the

Navy (USN)

DEFY is a mentoring program adopted by the

Department of Justice (DOJ) for Weed and Seed in 1996.

DEFY is to be a comprehensive program that

emphasizes the positive development of the mind, body,

and spirit.

Spring Break—

Together Everyone

Achieves More

(TEAM)

Fulton County Sheriff’s

Department, Atlanta

Police Department, Marta

Police, Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI),

U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban

Development/Office of

Inspector General

(HUD/OIG)

The Weed Task force sponsored the first annual Spring

Break TEAM building camp. Students from the target site

spent 2 intensive days with sports figures, HUD/OIG

agents, law enforcement officers, and conflict resolution

advocates.

Prevention,

intervention, and

treatment

Prevention through

arts

Ballethnic Dance

Company

The Ballethnic dance outreach program offers prevention

through the arts to students in the elementary and middle

schools.

Family/Community

prevention

workshops

Viewpoint, Inc. Viewpoint, Inc., provides family/community prevention

workshops to the target areas. A residential treatment

component is offered to 20 residents with 3 months of

aftercare as an integral part of the recovery process.

Community

revitalization

Teens, Crime, and

Community

Curriculum

Americorp, Victim

Witness Assistance

Program

The three communities completed a 12-week curriculum

of Teens, Crime, and Community that was conducted by

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.

Table III.2: Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s Funded Activities
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.

Type of

partnership/cooperative

arrangementa

Name of

partner/cooperative

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

Investigation (GBI)

GBI provides Drug Awareness and Resistance Education (DARE)

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

Department

Deputy sheriffs provide junior deputy training in Weed and Seed

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,

University

Pyramid Communications

Systems, Inc.

Pyramid Communication Systems (in partnership with Atlanta

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.

a

Not all partnerships are shown because program officials told us that a complete list was not

available.

Source: GAO survey and EOWS data.

Table III.3: Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s Leveraging Efforts
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

BACKGROUND

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.

Award amount Amount remaining

Fiscal year Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

 funds Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

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

a

Award 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.

Dyersburg, TN

Table III.4: Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1996-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Program element Activity Partner Description

Law enforcement Computer-aided

dispatch system

Dyersburg Police

Department

System to link the communications systems of Dyer

County law enforcement, fire, and ambulance

systems.

Juvenile Court

Referee

Dyer County Courts Expedite juvenile offenders court adjudication. Site

reported that by quicker adjudication it noted a

substantial decrease in the number of juvenile cases.

Community policing Supplies for citizen

police academy

classes

Dyersburg Police

Department

Academy to familiarize its citizens with the police

department, its personnel, its goals, and the way it

operates.

Prevention,

intervention, and

treatment

Summer program

for boys and girls

YMCA Day camp for children, including breakfast and lunch,

organized games, arts, songs, and character

development.

Umoja After-School

Enrichment Program

Ross United Methodist

Church

This safe haven developed a complementary afterschool program designed to assist parents,

churches, and public schools in enhancing the

quality of life for children.

Community

revitalization

Downtown Dyersburg

Revitalization Summit

The Council for Urban

Economic Development

Community summit to design and implement an

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.

Table III.5: Examples of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site’s Funded Activities
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Type of

partnership/cooperative

arrangementa

Name of

partner/cooperative

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

Investigations

Also was a partner in above investigations.

Local government Dyersburg School System Provides a staff member at no cost to help run safe haven program.

Dyersburg Police

Department

Provides a staff member at no cost to administer the Weed and

Seed program.

Dyersburg Police

Department

Doubled size of bike patrol—now has a two-person bike patrol team

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 minipolice 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.

a

Not 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.

Table III.6: Examples of Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site’s Leveraging Efforts
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 41 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

BACKGROUND

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.

Philadelphia, PA
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 42 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Award amount Amount remaining

Fiscal year Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

funds Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

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

a

Award 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.

 

1

The 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.

Table III.7: Philadelphia Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars)
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 43 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Program element Activity Partner(s) Description

Law enforcement Ongoing

investigations and

prosecutions

DEA, FBI, ATF, U.S.

Attorney’s Office (USAO),

Office of Attorney General

(OAG), Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS),

and the Philadelphia Police

Department

These organizations are to conduct collaborative

investigations among law enforcement agencies. In

addition, community residents provide information to the

police mobile units as well as provide anonymous

information to officers.

Community

policing

CUNAD antidrug

march and rally

Safe Havens, Philadelphia

Police Department, Schools,

Neighborhood Organizations,

Health Maintenance

Organizations, and citizen

volunteers

These organizations participate in and support antidrug

marches.

Prevention,

intervention, and

treatment

Referral services,

preparing to begin

prevention and

treatment

workshops in other

Weed and Seed

areas

Community groups,

Alcoholics Anonymous,

Narcotics Anonymous,

Target City Service, and

Central Intake Unit

These groups provide training and workshops relating to

drug and alcohol treatment and prevention. Residents

become involved by taking part in the workshops and

training provided and accepting referrals for drug

rehabilitation programs.

Conflict resolution

in schools

Schools, Shalom, Safe

Havens, AmeriCorps,

DARE programs, etc.

Prevention specialists teach conflict resolution in

schools. Residents become involved by participating in

the programs offered in the schools for their youths and

volunteering in the community and safe havens.

Community

revitalization

Creating a clean

and attractive

environment

Community groups, parents,

youths, Phila More Beautiful,

Pennsylvania Army National

Guard, AmeriCorps,

and city services

The goal of this activity is to motivate parents, youths,

schools, and businesses to work together toward a

clean and viable community. Youth volunteer to

participate to take part in area clean ups and attend

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.

Table III.8: Examples of Philadelphia Weed and Seed Site’s Funded Activities
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 44 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Type of

partnership/cooperative

arrangementa

Name of

partner/cooperative

arrangement Description

Federal government DOJ’s High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Area

(HIDTA) Program

DOJ’s HIDTA assesses the extent of and change in the

demographics of drug-using offenders and is to create an

integrated and collaborative intelligence center to focus on

narcotics trade in the area.

State government Pennsylvania Army

National Guard

This partner provides conflict resolution training, camping trips,

and demand reduction programs and assists in coordinating the

DEFY program.

Public, private, and

nonprofit agencies

Phil-Abundance, Greater

Philadelphia Food Bank,

and Coca-Cola

These organizations provide food, drinks, and snacks to safe

havens and after-school programs at no cost.

University Swarthmore College, Villanova

University, Edinboro University,

and Eastern College

Universities provide volunteers to assist with safe haven activities

and other projects, such as smoke detector installations and clean

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.

a

Not 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.

Table III.9: Examples of Philadelphia Weed and Seed Site’s Leveraging Efforts
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 45 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

BACKGROUND

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

San Diego, CA
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 46 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.

Award amount Amount remaining

Fiscal year Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

funds Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

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.

Table III.10: San Diego Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1992-98 (1998 Constant Dollars)
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 47 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Program element Activity Partner(s) Description

Law enforcement Violent Crimes

Task Force and

other local law

enforcement task

forces

San Diego Police

Department, INS, ATF,

FBI, DEA, California

Department of

Corrections, San Diego

District Attorney, San Diego

County Probation, and San

Diego City Attorney

The San Diego Police Department coordinates and works

with the task forces to arrest and adjudicate violent criminal

offenders for activities such as gang involvement, drug

trafficking, and car theft in the Weed and Seed target area.

Community

policing

Neighborhood

Policing Teams

(NPT)

San Diego Police

Department

The NPT works with local residents to address community

concerns, including drug and gang activity, public

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,

intervention, and

treatment

Safe Haven

Computer

Assembly

Course

Children’s/Youth Choir, Inc. A course for children in grades 6-12 designed to teach them

about the different parts and functions of computers.

Children learn how to assemble and operate a computer,

including installing and using software.

Safe Haven Arts

and Culture

Course

Arts and culture instructor A course for children ages 9-13 designed to provide them

with art instruction, such as basic drawing techniques, and

develop art work to be displayed at a “Community Pride

Day” in the Weed and Seed target area.

Community

revitalization

Community pride

events

Various A community pride event intended to bring target area

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 selfsustaining. 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.

Table III.11: Examples of San Diego Weed and Seed Site’s Funded Activities
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 48 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Type of

partnership/cooperative

arrangementa

Name of

partner/cooperative

arrangement Description

Federal, state, and

county governments

A variety of federal, state, and

county law enforcement agencies

The San Diego Police Department coordinates as well as

participates in task force operations not funded by the Weed and

Seed Program.

Federal, state, county,

and city governments,

and private and nonprofit

agencies

A variety of federal, state, county,

city government, and community

and quasi-governmental agencies

A variety of programs (computer assembly course, arts and

culture class, etc.) and services (youth mentoring, job

assistance) are offered through partnerships with a number of

agencies at cost or below market cost to the Weed and Seed

program.

Local government San Diego Police Department and

City of San Diego

The police department deploys paid staff, volunteers, and patrol

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 rentfree 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

sector

San Diego public schools, City of

San Diego, and a number of

community agencies

Facilities are provided rent-free for a number of Weed and Seed

activities.

a

Not 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.

Table III.12: Examples of San Diego Weed and Seed Site’s Leveraging Efforts
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 49 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 50 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

BACKGROUND

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.

Award amount Amount remaining

Fiscal year Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

funds Grant funds

Asset forfeiture

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.

a

The 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.

b

The 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.

Woburn, MA

Table III.13: Woburn Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1996-98 (1998 Constant Dollars)
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 51 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.

Program element Activity Partner Description

Law enforcement Drug investigations Woburn Police Department,

Northeastern Massachusetts

Law Enforcement Council

(NEMLEC) Drug Task

Force, and DEA

A coordinated operation conducted by the Woburn

Police Department, NEMLEC, and DEA. Funds are to

be used for police overtime.

Community

policing

Community policing Woburn Police

Department

A partnership between community police officers and

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,

intervention, and

treatment

Safe Haven/Kids

Club

North Suburban YMCA After-school educational/recreational program run in the

housing developments for children ages 5-10. Focus is

on developing reading and social interaction skills and

alcohol/drug/safety education.

Safe Haven/Afterschool programShamrock Elementary

School

Assists youths with homework assignments, classroom

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

Program—

mentor/coordinator

Woburn Housing Authority,

Woburn Police

Department

Assists community professionals and community police

officers in tracking high-risk youths ages 12-17. Youth

tracker also tracks youth crime, truancy, and youths in

need of assistance and support.

Community

revitalization

Job Links career

enhancement

program

Community Services

Network

Provides résumé writing, career counseling, interview

skills, and job readiness training for adults.

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 selfsustaining. 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

Table III.14: Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed Site’s Funded Activities
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 52 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.

Type of

partnership/cooperative

arrangementa

Name of

partner/cooperative

arrangement Description

State government Commonwealth of

Massachusetts’ Executive

Office of Public Safety

Cooperative work arrangement with the state to conduct an evaluation

of Woburn’s Weed and Seed site.

State and local

governments

City of Woburn Using state funds, the city hired a substance abuse counselor to act

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

YMCA

Provide staff and facilities for Weed and Seed-sponsored activities.

a

Not 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.

Table III.15: Examples of Woburn Weed and Seed Site’s Leveraging Efforts
Appendix III

GAO Site Visit Summaries

Page 53 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 54 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 55 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 1.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 56 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 2.
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

Page 58 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 1.
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

Page 60 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 1.
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

Page 62 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 3.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 63 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 4.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 64 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 1.

See comment 5.

See comment 4.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 65 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

See comment 6.
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

Page 69 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

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

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.

GAO Comments
Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 70 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management

Weldon McPhail, (202) 512-8644

Samuel S. Van Wagner

Dennise R. Stickley

Brian J. Lipman

David P. Alexander

Michelle A. Sager

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments
Page 71 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management
Page 72 GAO/GGD-99-110 Weed and Seed Grant Program Management
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax

number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(186771)