Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary, House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

March 2004 GRANTS 

MANAGEMENT 

Despite Efforts to 

Improve Weed and 

Seed Program 

Management, 

Challenges Remain 

GAO-04-245 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-245.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand 

at (202) 512-8777 or Ekstrandl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-245, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives 

March 2004

GRANTS MANAGEMENT 

Despite Efforts to Improve Weed and 

Seed Program Management, Challenges 

Remain 

Despite some progress toward addressing GAO’s recommendations aimed 

at improving program management, GAO’s review shows that EOWS has 

not fully implemented the management improvement recommendations 

GAO made in 1999. First, although EOWS has revised its internal controls to

require that significant qualification and funding decisions be documented 

and readily available in the central grant files for review, EOWS has not 

always ensured that its policies and procedures were followed, for the grant

files GAO reviewed. Second, EOWS reported taking a number of actions 

intended to improve program monitoring, such as mandating the timely 

submission of progress reports and adequate recording of site visits as GAO 

recommended. Nonetheless, GAO found that while EOWS was able to 

provide such documentation before its review ended, documentation was 

not available in some of the central grant files GAO reviewed. Thus, the 

documentation was not readily available for external reviewers, as required 

by OJP policies and GAO’s internal control standards. Third, GAO found 

that EOWS still lacks fully developed criteria to determine when sites 

become self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed 

funds because of the level of sustainability, even though sustainability is a 

central goal of the program. At the time of GAO’s review, no site’s funding 

had been reduced or withdrawn because of sustainability during the 

13 years of the program’s existence. Fourth, EOWS has not developed 

outcome performance measures that can be used to adequately track 

progress toward program outcomes of the Weed and Seed program. While 

EOWS has initiated studies on how to develop performance measures, at 

the time of GAO’s review, none of these studies had been completed. 

Without requirements to monitor improvements and assign accountability, 

progress will be difficult to achieve.

A sign displayed in front of a school in a Weed and Seed site. 

The Weed and Seed program, 

within the Department of Justice’s 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 

aims to prevent and reduce violent 

crime in targeted neighborhoods, 

but it cannot optimize its 

effectiveness without sound 

management practices. In 1999, 

GAO made four recommendations 

to the Executive Office for Weed 

and Seed (EOWS) to improve the 

program’s management, including 

(1) developing adequate internal 

controls to fully document 

decisions, (2) improving program 

monitoring, (3) developing criteria 

for determining when sites have 

become self-sustaining and when to 

reduce or withdraw program 

funding, and (4) developing 

additional performance measures. 

GAO did this study to assess 

progress in implementing these 

recommendations. 

GAO recommends that the 

Attorney General require the 

Assistant Attorney General for OJP 

to ensure that the Executive Office 

for Weed and Seed fully implement 

the intent of GAO’s previous 

recommendations. 

In commenting on a draft of this 

report, the Department of Justice 

agreed to strengthen controls on 

maintaining documentation and 

take further steps to define and 

apply criteria for self-sustainability. 

Justice believes that the studies 

currently under way will help 

develop outcome measures. 
Page i GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Internal Controls Have Been Developed, but Challenges Remain 7

EOWS Has Taken Steps to Improve Program-Monitoring 

Documentation, but Challenges Remain 9

Despite Some Steps, Challenges Remain in Developing Criteria for 

Self-Sustainability 11

Performance Measures Generally Did Not Track Program 

Outcomes 12

Conclusions 16

Recommendations for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 17

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 21 

Appendix II GAO Site Visit Summary 24 

Appendix III Proposed Legislation Could Affect Self-Sustainability 29 

Appendix IV Executive Office for Weed and Seed Selected 

Activities 31 

Appendix V Activity Data Collected by EOWS in Fiscal Year 2003 34 

Appendix VI Description of EOWS’s Ongoing and Completed 

Studies 36 

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Justice 37 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 42 

GAO Contacts 42

Staff Acknowledgments 42

Related GAO Products 43 

Tables 

Table 1: EOWS Funding History for Fiscal Years 1999-2003 4

Table 2: Sites’ Weed and Seed Funding History—Fiscal Years 1999-

2003 24

Table 3: Examples of Activities Funded by Weed and Seed in 

Pittsburgh, Charleston, and North Charleston 27

Table 4: Examples of Leveraging Efforts at Weed and Seed Sites in 

Pittsburgh, Charleston, and North Charleston 28

Abbreviations 

AAG Assistant Attorney General 

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services 

DFCSP Drug-Free Communities Support Program 

EOWS Executive Office for Weed and Seed 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FY fiscal year 

GMS grant management system 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

JRSA Justice Research and Statistics Association 

OJP Office of Justice Programs 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OR official recognition 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

March 24, 2004 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Department of Justice’s (Justice) Weed and Seed program proposes to 

“weed” out crime from targeted neighborhoods and “seed” them with a 

variety of programs and resources to prevent crime from recurring. Weed 

and Seed sites have sponsored activities such as police bike patrols, 

community cleanups, youth and recreational activities, and computer 

training. According to Justice, a central tenet of the Weed and Seed 

program is for local Weed and Seed sites to develop partnerships with 

other federal, state, and local governments and private sector agencies to 

leverage federal Weed and Seed grant funds with additional resources 

from these partners to promote weeding and seeding activities. These 

additional resources are intended to help the sites achieve the goal of 

becoming self-sustaining after Weed and Seed funding ends and to sustain 

crime reduction and community revitalization activities to ensure stable 

communities. 

This report responds to your request to assess the Executive Office for 

Weed and Seed’s (EOWS) efforts to implement the management 

improvement recommendations we made in 1999.1

 It is not intended to 

evaluate the overall management or results of the program. In our 

previous report on the Weed and Seed program, we recommended that 

EOWS improve its management of the Weed and Seed program. 

Specifically, we recommended that EOWS (1) develop adequate internal 

controls to ensure that the basis and the rationale for new and existing site 

qualification and funding decisions are always fully documented, 

(2) improve program monitoring to ensure that sites meet the grant 

requirement of submitting progress reports and that EOWS site visits are 

documented, (3) develop criteria for determining when sites are self-

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Grants: More Can Be Done to Improve Weed and 

Seed Program Management, GAO/GGD-99-110 (Washington, D.C.: July 1999).

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw program funding, and 

(4) develop additional performance measures that track program 

outcomes. This report summarizes our assessment of EOWS’s efforts to 

address our recommendations. 

To obtain information on EOWS’s efforts, we reviewed relevant 

documents, including EOWS’s policies and procedures, monitoring 

documentation, and agency staffing and budget data. We reviewed GAO, 

Congressional Research Service, and Justice’s Office of Inspector General 

reports. In addition, we interviewed officials from EOWS, the Office of 

Justice Programs, other entities in the Justice Department, and 

researchers in performance measurement and evaluation at the Justice 

Research and Statistics Association and the Urban Institute in Washington, 

D.C. We visited and interviewed program staff at three Weed and Seed 

sites. We reviewed 30 randomly selected Weed and Seed grant files to 

identify the actions taken by EOWS for those grants to document its 

qualification and funding decisions and the steps EOWS took to ensure 

that grant documentation requirements were met. Since the files we 

reviewed were not representative of all EOWS grant files, we cannot 

project the results to the larger population. However, the information 

helps to identify the level of implementation of our recommendations for 

those grants. Additional information about the report’s scope and 

methodology is presented in appendix I. We conducted this engagement in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Despite some progress toward addressing our recommendations aimed at 

improving program management, our review shows that EOWS has not 

fully implemented any of the management improvement recommendations 

we made in 1999. First, EOWS has revised its internal controls to require 

that significant qualification and funding decisions be documented and 

readily available in two types of centralized files: official recognition and 

official grant files. However, EOWS has not always ensured that the 

documentation was readily available and that its policies and procedures 

for internal controls were followed for the official recognition and official 

grant files we reviewed. Second, EOWS reported to us that it had taken a 

number of actions intended to improve program monitoring, such as 

mandating the timely submission of progress reports and adequate 

recording of site visits, as we recommended. Nonetheless, we found that 

while EOWS was able to provide such documentation before our review 

ended, documentation was not available in some of the central grant files 

we reviewed. Thus, the documentation was not readily available for EOWS 

management or external reviewers, as required by the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP) policies and GAO’s internal control standards. Third, we 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

found that EOWS still lacks fully developed criteria we recommended that 

they develop to determine when sites have become self-sustaining and 

when to reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed funds because of the level of 

sustainability, even though sustainability is a central goal of the program. 

At the time of our review, no site’s funding had been reduced or 

withdrawn because of sustainability during the 13 years of the program’s 

existence. Fourth, EOWS began developing additional performance 

measures to better assess how well sites are meeting program objectives, 

as we recommended in 1999. However, our work showed that although 

EOWS collected data on a variety of activities taking place at Weed and 

Seed sites, they generally did not measure the extent to which grantees 

were weeding crime from neighborhoods and preventing it from recurring. 

While EOWS has initiated studies on how to develop additional 

performance measures, at the time of our review, none of these studies 

had been completed. 

To further improve program management, we make a recommendation to 

the Attorney General for four actions to help ensure full implementation of 

the recommendations we made in our 1999 report. In commenting on a 

draft of this report, Justice partially agreed with our recommendations and 

mentioned actions being taken or planned in response. 

The Weed and Seed program is a Justice discretionary grant program 

within OJP.2

 The Assistant Attorney General for OJP is responsible for the 

overall management and oversight of offices within OJP, including EOWS. 

The Assistant Attorney General for OJP sets policies, promotes 

coordination among OJP bureaus and offices, and ensures that EOWS 

follows its policies and procedures. EOWS provides funding to grantees to 

help prevent and control crime and improve the quality of life in targeted 

high-crime neighborhoods across the country.3

 It is a joint federal, state, 

and local program for coordinated law enforcement and neighborhood 

reinvestment. Federal program funding is to support Weed and Seed sites 

and to provide training and technical assistance.4

 2

Discretionary grants are awarded to eligible grantees, most often on a competitive basis. 

3

A grantee is an entity that receives funding from EOWS to implement the Weed and Seed 

program. The grantee distributes the funds to sites and is responsible for ensuring that sites 

comply with the terms of the grant. A grantee may have more than one site. 

4

A site is a geographically defined area ranging in size from several neighborhood blocks to 

several square miles. With the input of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office and the site’s 

steering committee, each site develops and implements its own Weed and Seed program. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

The Weed and Seed program has grown since it began in fiscal year 

1991 with three pilot sites in Kansas City, Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; and 

Trenton, New Jersey, and a relatively small investment of federal money. 

From fiscal year 1999 through 2003, the number of Weed and Seed sites 

increased from 163 to 221, while the total annual program budget generally 

increased from about $45 million to $70 million. See table 1 for fiscal years 

1999-2003 data on the Weed and Seed program, including EOWS’s funding 

history. In fiscal year 2003, with a budget of about $70 million, EOWS 

awarded grants to 221 Weed and Seed sites. 

Table 1: EOWS Funding History for Fiscal Years 1999-2003 

Fiscal year 

Unobligated 

balance carried 

forward from 

prior year 

Prior year 

recoveries and 

other 

reimbursable 

adjustments 

EOWS 

appropriation

Funds from 

the asset 

forfeiture 

funda

Funds from 

the Housing 

and Urban 

Development 

(HUD)b

Total funding 

available

Number of 

funded sites

1999 $4,122,668 $714,466 $33,500,000 $6,500,000 $0 $44,837,134 163

2000 $4,129,852 $2,066,682 $33,500,000 $6,500,000 $0 $46,196,533c177

2001 $4,955,423 $1,269,708 $33,925,200 $15,500,000 $0 $55,650,331 212

2002 $584,278 $2,359,292 $58,918,000 $0 $10,000,000 $71,861,570 218

2003 $4,102,334 $2,713,913 $58,542,000 $0 $4,935,000 $70,293,247 221

Source: OJP’s Office of Budget and Management Services data. GAO did not verify the data. 

Note: For EOWS funding history prior to 1999, see GAO/GGD-99-110. 

a

The proceeds from the asset forfeitures fund were used for federal and state law enforcement 

purposes. EOWS received these funds from Justice, under a reimbursable agreement, for the 

payment of various costs incurred by state and local law enforcement officers that participated in joint 

federal law enforcement operations with federal agencies. 

b

HUD made $10 million in additional funding available, under a reimbursable agreement, to help 

Weed and Seed sites reduce drug-related crimes in public housing. 

c

Does not add because of rounding. 

EOWS is responsible for the national management and administration of 

the Weed and Seed program, including developing policy and providing 

guidance and oversight. EOWS currently administers the Weed and Seed 

program with a staff of 2 management officials, 10 grant monitors, 3 

support staff, 3 detailees,5

 and 6 contractors. 

 5

Two detailees are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and one is from the 

Department of the Interior. The FBI detailees work part-time at EOWS. 
Page 5 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Before a community can apply for Weed and Seed grant funding and 

become an eligible site, it must first apply for and gain official recognition 

from EOWS. In order to obtain official recognition, a potential Weed and 

Seed site must show in its application that it has a strategy for weeding 

and preventing crime. Once the application has been received, EOWS 

creates and maintains the official recognition files that are intended to 

include documentation such as the rationale for decisions to grant or deny 

official recognition to an applicant. 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 made up of various federal, state, and 

local representatives, including residents, to be responsible for local 

administration of the program.6

 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 program to weed 

out crime and gang activity and seed the area with social services, 

economic services, and economic revitalization. 

Weed and Seed program guidance requires that its sites show plans for 

addressing four required elements: (1) law enforcement; (2) community 

policing; (3) crime prevention and intervention, and substance abuse 

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 assistance to distressed neighborhoods through economic 

and housing development. Weed and Seed sites fund a variety of law 

enforcement and community activities. For example, law enforcementfunded activities range from participation in a multijurisdictional task 

force to conducting bike patrols in the community. See appendix II for 

additional information on Weed and Seed activities at the sites GAO 

visited. 

 6

There are 93 U.S. Attorneys throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law 

enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction. The U.S. 

Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney 

General. 
Page 6 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Applicants that are officially recognized are eligible to apply for funding 

for up to 5 years. OJP’s Office of the Comptroller creates and maintains 

official grant files for sites that are awarded funding by EOWS. Applicants 

are rated based on the strategy they developed in response to the four 

required elements, as stated above. 

In our 1999 report, we made four recommendations to help EOWS 

improve program monitoring and management. The first was to develop 

adequate internal controls to fully document significant qualification and 

funding decisions. We found that EOWS lacked internal controls requiring 

significant program management decisions be documented. Therefore, 

EOWS was not able to ensure that it was making the best decisions about 

allocating available funds. Our second recommendation was to improve 

program monitoring to ensure that sites met the grant requirement of 

submitting progress reports and that EOWS site visits were documented. 

We found that EOWS did not always ensure that local sites submitted 

progress reports and that grant monitors documented the results of site 

visits. Such documentation would help EOWS management and grant 

monitors determine how sites are meeting program objectives and how 

well sites are complying with grant requirements, and assist them in 

making future grant qualification decisions. Our third recommendation 

was to develop criteria for determining when sites have become selfsustaining and when to reduce or withdraw program funding. We found 

that although self-sustainability is central to the program, no site’s funding 

had been reduced or withdrawn as a result of its efforts to become selfsustaining in the 9 years of the program’s existence. Establishing such 

criteria is important because the Weed 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. Our fourth 

recommendation was to develop additional performance measures to 

track program outcomes. We found that EOWS’s performance indicators 

generally tracked activities rather than program results; therefore, EOWS 

was not able to measure the success of the program. 

EOWS generally agreed with three of the four recommendations presented 

in the report and discussed future actions it planned to take. EOWS 

officials disagreed with our recommendation on self-sustainability. They 

stated that developing criteria to ascertain self-sustainment is redundant 

since EOWS adopted a 5-year rule under which it could discontinue 

awarding funding to qualifying sites unless the sites expanded to an 

additional neighborhood site. 
Page 7 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Although EOWS has developed internal controls intended to require that 

significant qualification and funding decisions be documented and readily 

available for review as we recommended in 1999, these policies and 

procedures are generally not being followed in the files we reviewed. In 

response to our 1999 recommendation on internal controls, EOWS 

established policies and procedures intended to ensure that significant 

qualification decisions were documented. In addition, OJP requires that 

qualification and funding decisions are to be documented in official 

recognition and official grant files. Our review of 20 official recognition 

and 10 official grant files showed that some of EOWS’s official recognition 

and official grant files were missing full documentation regarding the 

qualification and funding decisions. 7 However, before our file review 

ended, EOWS officials produced further documentation, which they 

acknowledged was not in the official recognition and official grant files as 

required, but rather in the personal working files of grant monitors and 

thus not readily available to EOWS management and external reviewers. 

This lack of ready availability is not in keeping with EOWS’s and OJP’s 

policies and procedures, or with the Comptroller General’s standards for 

internal controls.8

 Without having official recognition and official grant 

files complete and readily available, it may delay and complicate EOWS 

officials’ oversight of the documentation of qualification and funding 

decisions. 

Both EOWS and OJP policies and procedures have been developed to help 

ensure the documentation of significant decisions. In 2000, EOWS 

developed a policies and procedures guide in response to the 

recommendation we made in our 1999 report intended to ensure that 

significant qualification and funding decisions for new and existing sites9

were always fully documented, and further revised the guide in 2003. This 

guide requires that all documentation pertaining to official recognition 

decisions be kept in the official recognition files. EOWS is also required to 

follow the policies in the OJP Grants Management Policies and 

Procedures Manual, which requires that EOWS fully document program 

management decisions in both official recognition files and official grant 

 7

When applicants apply for funding, EOWS creates and maintains official recognition files. 

If applicants receive funding, OJP creates and maintains official grant files. 

8

U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 9

Throughout the rest of this report, we refer to both new and existing sites as sites. 

Internal Controls 

Have Been 

Developed, but 

Challenges Remain 

Policies and Procedures 

Have Been Developed to 

Document Significant 

Decisions 
Page 8 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

files. The OJP manual specifically requires that the official recognition 

files and official grant files contain key documents such as ratings 

information, rejection letters, and applications. 

Despite EOWS’s and OJP’s efforts to require the documentation of 

qualification and funding decisions in official recognition and official grant 

files, some of EOWS’s official recognition and official grant files we 

reviewed were incomplete at the time of our file review. In reviewing the 

official recognition files, we randomly selected 10 files to review from the 

94 files submitted for official recognition in fiscal year 2002. Additional 

information about how we selected the files is in appendix I. We found 

sufficient documentation in 7 of the 10 files to determine the basis and 

rationale for decisions to award official recognition. However, in the 

remaining 3 files we were unable to determine the basis and rationale for 

such decisions because documentation was insufficient. For example, key 

documents such as the ratings information that EOWS grant monitors use 

to record their assessment of the official recognition applications did not 

contain the basis and rationale for the award decision.10 Additionally, 

OJP’s grant policies and procedures require EOWS’s grant monitors to 

prepare a rejection letter, informing applicants of reasons for rejection 

when funding is denied and place a copy of the rejection letter in the 

official recognition file. We reviewed all 10 official recognition files for the 

applicants that were eligible to apply for funding in fiscal year 2002 but 

were rejected. We found a rejection letter was missing in 7 of the 10 files. 

We also reviewed documents in EOWS’s official grant files to assess 

EOWS’s efforts to comply with EOWS and OJP policies for fully 

documenting funding decisions. We randomly selected 10 official grant 

files to review from the 31 sites that were funded in fiscal year 2002. We 

found that none of the 10 official grant files fully documented funding 

decisions for Weed and Seed sites. For example, the application, a basic 

component of the official grant file, was missing in 8 of the 10 files. 

Several directives require that grant documentation be readily available. 

OJP’s policies and procedures manual requires that documentation be 

kept readily available in the official recognition and official grant files, so 

that OJP and EOWS management can identify and resolve any problems or 

 10EOWS uses the information in the documents as the basis to award official recognition. 

Official Recognition and 

Official Grant Files Were 

Incomplete 

Challenges Persist in 

Making Documentation 

Readily Available 
Page 9 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

deficiencies in grantees’ compliance with relevant policies and 

procedures. OJP’s policies and procedures manual requires that all 

pertinent information that should be in the official recognition and the 

official grant files be kept in a centralized location to facilitate reviewing 

for completeness. In addition, the Comptroller General’s guidance on 

internal controls in the federal government, Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government, requires that the documentation for 

all transactions and significant events be readily available for examination. 

The Assistant Attorney General for OJP is responsible for holding EOWS 

accountable for following its policies and procedures. In reference to the 

ratings information and rejection letters missing from the official 

recognition files, EOWS produced the documents after our initial review, 

informing us that the documents were kept in the personal files of the 

grant monitors--rather than the official recognition files--a practice not in 

keeping with EOWS’s and OJP’s policies and procedures. In reference to 

the missing applications, EOWS officials also produced them after our 

initial review, but did not specify where they found them. Not having 

complete and readily available official recognition and official grant files 

may delay and make it more difficult for OJP and EOWS officials to 

perform management functions such as overseeing and assessing the 

documentation and oversight of qualification and funding decisions. While 

we eventually were able to obtain documentation showing the basis and 

rationale for EOWS decision making, the incomplete official recognition 

and official grant files made the review difficult and time-consuming. 

In responding to a draft of this report, Justice stated that electronic 

documents maintained in its grant management system (GMS) are 

considered a part of the official recognition and official grant files and are 

readily available to EOWS, and that they should have been readily 

available to, and easily accessible by, GAO. 

In response to our 1999 recommendation, EOWS has taken steps to 

improve program monitoring, as with the documentation of qualification 

and funding decisions, but challenges remain in making the monitoring 

documentation readily available. While OJP requires progress reports and 

site visit reports to be included in the official grant files, our review in 

2003 of 10 official grant files showed that some of EOWS’s files were 

missing full documentation. However, before our review ended, EOWS 

provided further documentation that fully documented progress reports 

and site visits, which it acknowledges was not in the official grant files, 

and thus not readily available. This lack of readily available documentation 

is not in keeping with OJP’s policies and procedures. Not having complete 

and readily available official grant files may delay and complicate EOWS 

EOWS Has Taken 

Steps to Improve 

Program-Monitoring 

Documentation, but 

Challenges Remain 
Page 10 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

officials’ and external reviewers’ assessment of whether EOWS’s 

monitoring requirements are being followed. 

Despite EOWS’s efforts, some of the official grant files we reviewed were 

incomplete at the time of our file review. We randomly selected 10 files 

from the 31 sites that were first funded in fiscal year 200211 to determine 

whether the sites had submitted the required progress reports from 

January 1, 2003, through June 30, 2003.12 Of the 10 files we reviewed, 6 did 

not contain any of the required progress reports for the period. The 

remaining 4 files included the required progress reports. OJP’s policies and 

procedures require EOWS to ensure that progress reports are included in 

the official grant files. However, when we asked EOWS about the missing 

progress reports, EOWS provided us with the requested documents. We 

asked, but EOWS did not specify where it found the missing 

documentation. 

In addition, EOWS’s grant monitors are required to conduct site visits a 

minimum of every 18 months and document their visits. This 

documentation is meant to convey to EOWS management officials how 

well sites are complying with grant requirements and is to be used by 

EOWS in making funding decisions. Grant monitors are to prepare a report 

of the visits and forward a copy to the Office of the Comptroller for 

inclusion in the official grant file. We reviewed the same 10 grant files 

discussed above to determine whether site visits were fully documented. 

We found that a site visit report was not yet due for 7 of the 10 files. In the 

remaining 3 files where a site visit was due, none of the 3 files contained 

documentation that the site visit had been conducted. We requested to 

speak to the responsible grant monitors to determine whether site visits 

had been conducted. EOWS officials told us that the monitors were no 

longer involved with the program but provided additional documentation 

for the 3 files we reviewed. The documentation showed that of the 3 sites, 

only 1 visit had been conducted; the other 2 were scheduled but had been 

delayed. While we only reviewed 3 files where a site visit was due, the lack 

 11The remaining 187 of the 218 sites received funding in fiscal year 2002, but were initially 

funded prior to fiscal year 2002. 

12Progress reports describe Weed and Seed activities and the accomplishment of objectives 

in a site’s funding application. Progress reports help EOWS officials determine how sites 

are meeting program objectives and assist them in making future grant decisions. Progress 

reports are due 30 days after June 30 and December 31, respectively. 

Official Grant Files Were 

Incomplete 
Page 11 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

of documentation in all 3 files, as well as the fact that only 1 of 3 site visits 

had been conducted, added to our concerns about the completeness of 

official grant files for program oversight. 

As we have previously mentioned, OJP’s policies and procedures manual 

and the Comptroller General’s guidance on internal controls require that 

documentation should be kept readily available for examination. 

Subsequent to our finding missing progress reports and site visit reports, 

EOWS provided us with additional documentation that demonstrated that 

the progress reports and one of the site visit reports had been completed. 

When asked about where they found the missing progress reports and site 

visit reports, EOWS officials did not specify where they found the missing 

documentation. 

EOWS has established a rule and set some activities for sites to complete 

to encourage them to become self-sustaining. However, it has still not fully 

developed criteria to determine when sites have become self-sustaining 

and when to reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed grant funds, as we 

recommended in 1999. To become self-sustaining, sites must leverage 

additional resources from sources other than EOWS to sustain the Weed 

and Seed program without EOWS funds. We found that EOWS has not 

reduced or withdrawn funds from any Weed and Seed sites for reasons 

related to becoming self-sustaining. This is important because without 

overall program funding increases, new sites cannot be funded unless 

funding can be reduced or discontinued from sites that have achieved selfsustainability. 

In 1999, EOWS established a rule to encourage self-sustainability that was 

generally intended to limit Weed and Seed funding to a site to 5 calendar 

years and require grantees to shift the majority of EOWS funds to a 

different site after 5 years.13 According to EOWS officials, EOWS also 

encouraged sites to become self-sustaining by establishing activities to be 

completed during each year of the 5-year grant.14 Program monitors are to 

assess sites’ completion of these activities by recording results on a 

checklist. 

 13Grantees may have more than one site. 

14EOWS refers to these activities as benchmarks. For a list of EOWS’s benchmarks, see 

appendix IV. 

Challenges Persist in 

Making Monitoring 

Documentation Readily 

Available 

Despite Some Steps, 

Challenges Remain in 

Developing Criteria 

for Self-Sustainability 

EOWS Encourages SelfSustainability, yet Needs 

Criteria to Make Funding 

Decisions 
Page 12 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

We found that while EOWS undertook efforts to encourage selfsustainability, it has not fully developed criteria to make funding decisions 

based on whether sites had achieved self-sustainability. In fiscal year 2002, 

73 sites, which had completed 5 years of EOWS funding, reapplied for 

funding. EOWS approved an additional round of 5-year funding to 67 of 

these sites. EOWS denied funding to 6 sites, but not for reasons related to 

self-sustainability. At the time of our review, no site’s funding had been 

reduced or withdrawn because the site had achieved self-sustainability, 

even though EOWS has funded some sites since the early 1990s. In relation 

to the activities EOWS set to encourage sites to achieve self-sustainability, 

because these activities were established in 2003, we could not assess the 

sites’ progress toward completing them. As we reported in 1999, without 

criteria, EOWS does not have a basis for determining when sites are selfsustaining and when to reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed funds. 

EOWS officials told us that OJP is currently developing criteria for selfsustainability for EOWS and other OJP programs and that a report 

detailing the criteria may be completed in 2004. According to Justice, 

EOWS developed a new criterion for self-sustainability in the FY2003 

Competitive Application Kit regarding whether or not a full-time 

coordinator is funded by a reallocation of resources other than the Weed 

and Seed grant. 

For information about proposed legislation that could affect selfsustainability for Weed and Seed sites, similar to other Justice programs, 

see appendix III. 

In 1999, we reported15 that while EOWS had developed various 

performance measures in an attempt to respond to the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993,16 EOWS’s measures 

generally did not track program outcomes.17 GPRA seeks to shift the focus 

of federal management and decision making away from activities 

performed to outcomes, or the results of activities undertaken. Since our 

 15See GAO/GGD-99-110. 

16P.L. 103-62. 

17Performance measures translate program goals into concrete, observable conditions that 

determine what data to collect to learn whether progress has been made toward achieving 

program goals. Such measures are meant to cover the key aspects of performance that will 

enable programs to assess accomplishments, make decisions, realign processes, and assign 

accountability. 

Performance 

Measures Generally 

Did Not Track 

Program Outcomes 
Page 13 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

last report, EOWS has continued to refine and develop its performance 

measures, but we found that EOWS still generally collects site activity data 

rather than measuring outcomes.EOWS also generally does not use 

intermediate measures, which represent conditions believed to precede or 

contribute to achieving the ultimate outcomes that may be considered 

constructive steps toward measuring outcomes. While assessing success 

using outcomes and/or intermediate measures can be difficult, doing so is 

important to program management and to policy makers for 

understanding whether the program is achieving the intended results, and 

for identifying opportunities for improvement. 

Our review showed that EOWS generally collects activity data, but has not 

developed outcome or intermediate measures that enable EOWS 

management to track the success of the Weed and Seed program in 

meeting its goals.18 As established in prior work by GAO, outcome 

measures help officials track the success of their programs in meeting 

program goals.19 EOWS mostly collects data about site activities, such as 

whether sites have foot patrols, safe havens, and provide job training. An 

intermediate measure, for example in relation to job training programs, 

might be the extent to which those who attend job training obtain 

employment. This intermediate measure rests on the assumption that 

individuals who are employed are less likely to commit crimes. See 

appendix V for activity data collected by EOWS. 

EOWS officials told us that to measure its success in reducing violent 

crime, they collect data on the number of homicides and consider 

homicides the significant indicator for measuring performance outcomes. 

However, using the number of homicides as an outcome measure 

indicative of program success is problematic for several reasons. First, 

because homicides are relatively rare, even in high crime areas, homicide 

trends may be too unstable (fluctuate too much from year to year) to 

assess the success of the Weed and Seed program. Second, outcome 

measures, such as homicides, can present some methodological challenges 

 18EOWS officials told us that the Weed and Seed program has three main goals: (1) reduce 

violent crime, (2) reduce drug crime, and (3) coordinate Weed and Seed funds with other 

resources. Such goals are related to the overall intent of the program to weed out crime 

from targeted neighborhoods and seed them with a variety of programs to prevent crime 

from recurring. 

19U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in 

Measuring Performance, GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 1997). 

EOWS Generally Collects 

Activity Data Rather Than 

Outcome Performance 

Measures 
Page 14 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

because it is difficult to draw a direct causal link between the homicides 

and a program’s work. Economic trends and other law enforcement 

initiatives could also be responsible for the observed outcomes. If 

homicides are used as a performance measure, any analysis should 

attempt to control for other factors influencing the outcomes. Third, given 

the broad nature of this program goal -- to reduce violent crime, measuring 

outcomes in relation to only one type of violent crime also seems 

problematic because it is too narrowly focused. According to EOWS 

officials, homicide data was selected because of its reliability, and because 

gang-related homicides are a significant indicator of the success of a Weed 

and Seed strategy. 

In February 2004,the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a 

detailed assessment of the Weed and Seed program.20 According to OMB, 

Weed and Seed has not demonstrated results. OMB’s report states that 

Weed and Seed lacks clear targets or timelines for reducing violent crime. 

Additionally, the report states that Weed and Seed has difficulty collecting 

data and developing aggregate measures for assessing program 

performance. 

Although the Weed and Seed program faces many challenges in developing 

outcome measures for its various activities, we have previously reported 

that other federal programs have developed effective performance 

measures even under difficult circumstances.21 These reports identified a 

variety of strategies that other federal programs have used to develop 

performance measures. For example, we reported that some federal 

programs utilized a mix of outcome and intermediate measures.22 This 

combination of measures allowed them to minimize the risk of not 

showing outcomes because of their limited control over external factors 

such as economic trends, which may prevent programs from achieving 

intended outcomes. Intermediate measures are also helpful to show 

progress when it is expected to take many years before the desired 

outcome is likely to be achieved. In such instances, progress toward 

program outcomes may be demonstrated through intermediate outcomes. 

 20OMB periodically assesses goals and results of federal programs, such as Weed and Seed, 

and reports on its findings. The purpose is to tie performance with the budget process. 

21U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Measuring Program Results That 

Are Under Limited Federal Control,GAO/GGD-99-16 (Washington, D.C.: December 11, 

1998) and GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138. 

22See GAO/GGD-99-16. 

GAO Has Previously 

Reported on How Other 

Federal Programs Have 

Developed Effective 

Performance Measures, 

Despite Challenges
Page 15 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

We also reported that where measuring outcomes is, after careful 

consideration, deemed infeasible, intermediate measures can be used to 

track progress toward outcomes for programs such as Weed and Seed.23

In addition, we have reported other ways federal agencies have used 

intermediate outcomes.24 For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration uses the rate of safety belt use as an intermediate measure 

of its goal to reduce motor vehicle crashes and the resulting fatalities and 

injuries. As we reported, an increase in the use of safety belts is 

considered an intermediate outcome--not an end outcome--because it is 

desirable not in itself but because it has been demonstrated to contribute 

to the ultimate goal--reducing highway-related fatalities and injuries.25

The Justice Research and Statistics Association and the Urban Institute 

are currently developing additional outcome performance measures under 

contracts awarded by EOWS in 2002 and 2003. According to EOWS 

officials, these research organizations have the expertise needed to 

develop outcome performance measures for the Weed and Seed program. 

We interviewed researchers from these organizations and spoke to EOWS 

officials about their research plans. However, none of the studies on 

developing additional performance measures had been completed at the 

time of our review, and it is too soon to tell whether the studies will 

produce outcome measures needed to adequately assess the Weed and 

Seed program.26 The Justice Research Statistics Association and other 

researchers were conducting studies on crime data and evaluation during 

our review; one of those studies was submitted to EOWS in November 

2003. See appendix VI for a description of EOWS’s ongoing and completed 

studies. 

 23U.S General Accounting Office, Law Enforcement: Better Performance Measures Needed 

to Assess Results of Justice’s Office of Science and Technology, GAO-04-198 (Washington, 

D.C.: November 2003). 

24See GAO/GGD-99-16. 

25 It is commonly accepted that safety belt use reduces fatality rates and the severity of 

injuries. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety: Safety Belts Use Laws Save 

Lives and Reduce Costs to Society, GAO/RCED-92-106 (Washington, D.C.: May 1992) 

26In November 2003 the Justice Research and Statistics Association completed a study 

comparing homicide trends in sites to their host jurisdictions. However, this study relied on 

homicide rates collected by EOWS, rather than developing additional performance 

measures. 

Additional Performance 

Measures Are Being 

Developed for EOWS 
Page 16 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

We believe that 5 years has been ample time for OJP and EOWS to fully 

implement the recommendations we made in our 1999 report. EOWS has 

developed and partially implemented policies requiring the completion of 

documentation to support major decisions, such as qualification and 

funding decisions, and recorded monitoring information. But by failing to 

ensure that these documents are appropriately maintained in official 

recognition and grant files, the documents are not readily available to 

meet their purpose. That is, the intent of this type of internal control is to 

ensure that both management and external reviewers such as auditors can 

adequately perform their responsibilities, for example, reviewing work and 

making management decisions based on complete and accurate 

information. While EOWS was eventually able to produce the 

documentation we requested, failure to appropriately file the 

documentation made the process of using it very inefficient and, in effect, 

may have defeated the purpose of having it completed. 

While EOWS may have moved forward in addressing its self-sustainability 

goals by recently developing an activity checklist for grantees to use to 

document actions that are intended to achieve self-sustainability, the 

activities do not constitute criteria for determining when sites should be 

considered self-sustaining and consequently have federal funds reduced or 

discontinued. One of the benefits of such criteria is to enable EOWS to 

determine when current projects are likely to be able to self-sustain so that 

available funding can be used to help reduce crime and achieve other 

benefits in other deserving communities. Because no sites have had their 

funding withdrawn because they were deemed self-sustaining during the 

13-year life of this program, EOWS may be foregoing the opportunity to 

use the funds in another location where the need for federal funding is 

greater or EOWS may need less overall funding. Without criteria to 

determine when federal funds are no longer needed, EOWS also runs the 

risk of providing funds beyond what is needed to sustain some sites. 

EOWS also needs performance measures that focus on program outcomes, 

and/or achievement of intermediate goals, so that it and those that provide 

oversight, such as the Congress and OMB, will be able to adequately assess 

the extent to which the program is achieving its goals. Management 

depends on this type of assessment to make the strategic and operations 

decisions needed to achieve the program’s missions and goals. Congress 

and oversight agencies need this type of assessment so they can make 

funding decisions and help ensure that EOWS is in the best position and 

has the best tools to accomplish its mission. While EOWS recognizes the 

need for outcome performance measures and has funded studies to help 

Conclusions 
Page 17 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

develop them, it is unclear at this time whether these studies will be able 

to suggest the needed measures. 

We recommend that the Attorney General of the United States require the 

Assistant Attorney General for OJP to ensure that the Executive Office for 

Weed and Seed fully implement the intent of our previous 

recommendations by taking the following four steps: 

• maintain the documentation of the basis and rationale for qualification 

and funding decisions in appropriate grant files; 

• retain progress reports and site visit reports in official grant files; 

• clearly define criteria to assess when sites are self-sustaining and apply 

the criteria to sites when making further funding decisions; and 

• develop outcome performance measures--or, where measuring 

outcome is, after careful consideration, deemed infeasible, 

intermediate measures--that can be used to adequately track progress 

toward program outcomes of the Weed and Seed program. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General of the United 

States for review and comment. In a March 11, 2004, letter, the Assistant 

Attorney General (AAG) for OJP commented on the draft. Her written 

comments are summarized below and presented in their entirety in 

appendix VII. Based on Justice’s comments, we modified the text of our 

report where appropriate and also incorporated Justice’s technical 

comments into this report where appropriate. 

In the AAG’s response, the Justice Department generally agreed with our 

recommendations on maintaining the documentation of the basis and 

rationale for qualification and funding decisions in appropriate grant files 

and retaining progress reports and site visit reports in official grant files. 

Justice agreed in part with our recommendation on self-sustainability 

criteria and fully agreed with our recommendation on outcome 

performance measures, and offered additional information to show it had 

moved forward in responding to our past recommendation. 

Justice agreed that controls should be strengthened to ensure that the 

basis and rationale for qualification and funding decisions are documented 

in the centrally maintained official recognition (OR) files. In Justice’s 

comments, the AAG explained that electronic documents maintained in its 

grant management system (GMS) are considered a part of the official 

recognition file and are readily available to EOWS, and that they should 

have been, but were not, readily available to, and easily accessible by, 

GAO. As of the current fiscal year, OJP will not only post all solicitations 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 18 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

and receive all grant applications via GMS, but also receive and maintain 

all grant progress reports on GMS. In this way, there will be no 

opportunity to misplace official grant documents. Justice stated that OJP’s 

Office of the Comptroller will implement procedures to ensure that 

external reviewers have ready access to GMS information. 

Justice agreed with our second recommendation on retaining progress 

reports and site visit reports in official grant files. Justice noted that EOWS 

recently implemented a progress reporting module in GMS that now 

enables recipients of grants awarded through GMS to submit semi annual 

progress reports electronically. OJP is developing a monitoring module 

that will enable program monitors to record and report on site visits 

directly in GMS. In the interim, EOWS and the Office of the Comptroller 

will take steps to strengthen controls to ensure that copies of completed 

site visit reports are included in the official grant file. 

Justice agreed in part with our third recommendation on self-sustainability 

and noted that EOWS will further define the criteria to assess when sites 

are self-sustaining and apply the criteria when making funding decisions. 

Further, Justice said it is promoting a “graduation” process to bring sites 

to sustainability and cease providing Weed and Seed funding to those 

sites, thus making funding available to assist newer developing sites. 

However, Justice does not agree that EOWS has never set criteria for selfsustainability. Justice said that EOWS set a criterion for self-sustainability 

in the FY2003 Weed and Seed Competitive Application Kit, which asked if 

the application provided for a full-time coordinator funded by reallocation 

of existing resources other than the Weed and Seed grant. According to 

Justice, applications were ranked against this criterion. According to 

EOWS officials, in March 2004, EOWS will announce an additional 

criterion specific to measuring self-sustainability. The new criterion will 

require grant applicants to identify other funding sources at a level five 

times the EOWS contribution. This criterion will be considered when 

making funding decisions. 

We applaud EOWS’s commitment to further develop criteria to assess 

when sites are self-sustaining and apply the criteria to sites when making 

further funding decisions. However, Justice’s comments did not provide 

specific information about how the Application Kit criterion has been used 

to determine self-sustainability. We added Justice’s belief that this 

criterion relates to self-sustainability to the text, but also note that over 

the 13-year history of the program, funding has never been reduced or 

withdrawn from a site because a site was deemed to be self-sustaining. 
Page 19 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Justice agrees that developing outcome performance measures is 

important and states that EOWS has been working to develop measures 

that track progress toward program outcomes in the Weed and Seed 

Program. In a letter commenting on this draft report, Justice provided a 

summary of results from JRSA’s study to support EOWS’s use of the 

change in homicides as a measure of program success. According to 

Justice’s summary, this study concluded that measuring reductions of 

homicides is an adequate performance measure of the Weed and Seed 

program because of its reliability and explicit selection as a goal by over 

30 percent of the Weed and Seed sites participating in the Crime Pattern 

Study. In addition, Justice includes a 5 percent reduction in homicides in 

Weed and Seed sites as part of its Strategic Plan. With its comments, 

Justice included summaries of two recent research reports. One of these, 

Analysis of Homicide in Weed and Seed Sites, showed positive results in 

homicide trends in Weed and Seed sites when compared to host 

jurisdictions. Another report, Crime Pattern Analysis (Three-Top Crime 

Study), showed that after the third year of Weed and Seed program 

implementation, sites encountered a significant decrease in reported 

crimes. 

Because the Crime Pattern Analysis study was not completed at the time 

of our review, we could not fully assess its methodological rigor and 

whether it would result in effective outcome performance measures.

Although we believe that EOWS may be moving in the right direction 

regarding developing additional performance measures and we mention 

the studies in the report text, we also believe that homicides have 

shortcomings as described in the text when used as the only measure of 

the program’s performance. In addition, our review of the Analysis of 

Homicide in Local Weed and Seed Sites study generated several concerns. 

First, the study used changes in the raw volume of homicides, instead of 

changes in homicide rates, as its indicator of success or failure of program 

sites. This method does not account for changes in the population as 

would be accounted for were a homicide rate measured. Second, the study 

used the larger host jurisdictions for specific Weed and Seed sites as the 

comparison locations to which the Weed and Seed sites are compared. In 

doing so, Weed and Seed sites’ homicide data are included with host 

jurisdictions’ homicide data, thus making the differences between them 

extremely difficult to interpret. It is also worth noting that this study 

evaluates Weed and Seed sites only on the basis of decreases in homicides, 

while Weed and Seed was intended to decrease crime more generally. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
Page 20 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or 

your staff has any questions on this report, please call Weldon McPhail on 

(202) 512-8644 or me on (202) 512-8777. 

Sincerely yours, 

Laurie E. Ekstrand, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 21 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

To determine what actions the Executive Office for Weed and Seed 

(EOWS) has taken to develop an adequate internal control to ensure full 

documentation of the basis and rationale for qualifying new and existing 

sites for funding, we reviewed (1) the criteria used to determine which 

new and existing sites should be qualified for funding, and (2) EOWS’s 

policies and guidance. To gather this information, we interviewed officials 

from Justice and EOWS and reviewed pertinent documents, including 

EOWS policies and procedures, official recognition and grant applications, 

management oversight and monitoring documentation, and budget 

reports. In addition, we randomly selected 10 of 94 fiscal year 2002 official 

recognition files submitted to EOWS for review. These 10 files included 5 

files from new applicants and 5 files from existing sites that applied in 

2002 and were funded in fiscal year 2002. We reviewed 10 of the 14 official 

recognition files that EOWS decided not to fund in fiscal year 2002. We 

also reviewed 10 randomly selected official grant files from the 31 new and 

existing sites that were approved for funding in fiscal year 2002. Because 

of limited resources, we did not attempt to review all the files. While the 

small sample size prevents us from making reliable generalizations, the 

30 files we reviewed represented various types of files that EOWS 

maintains. We selected the files from a list that was provided to us by 

EOWS. To ensure the list of files was sufficient for the purpose of our 

review, we spoke to knowledgeable EOWS officials about the 

completeness and accuracy of the list. 

To assess what steps EOWS has taken to improve program monitoring to 

ensure that sites meet the grant requirement of submitting progress 

reports, and that EOWS site visits are documented, we reviewed EOWS 

program grant guidance, including training offered, the EOWS monitoring 

guidance used by grant monitors when conducting site visits, and the grant 

files for the Weed and Seed sites that we visited: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 

Charleston, South Carolina; and North Charleston, South Carolina. We 

selected these sites from the 221 sites funded by EOWS in fiscal year 

2003. Based on our discussions with EOWS officials about the sites, we 

selected three sites, which although not representative of all sites, had 

received Weed and Seed grant funds since the early 1990s, which enabled 

us to learn about their efforts to implement the Weed and Seed strategy 

over time. We also reviewed selected monitoring visit reports prepared by 

grant monitors for these sites and biannual progress reports submitted in 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We interviewed EOWS officials and grant 

coordinators at these 3 sites regarding procedures used for monitoring 

Weed and Seed sites. We also reviewed the same 10 randomly selected 

official grant files discussed above from the 31 new and existing sites that 

were funded in fiscal year 2002 to determine whether the progress reports 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 22 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

and site visit reports were in the official grant files and readily available. 

The sites were funded under EOWS’s competitive application and did not 

include sites funded under EOWS’s continuation application.1

 While the 

10 files we reviewed represented various types of files that EOWS 

maintains, the small sample size prevents us from making reliable 

generalizations about all official grant files. To ensure the list of files was 

sufficient for the purpose of our review, we spoke to a knowledgeable 

official about the completeness and accuracy of the list. 

To assess what criteria, if any, EOWS has developed when sites are selfsustaining and when to reduce or withdraw program funding, we asked 

EOWS officials for any relevant information. Following repeated requests, 

EOWS officials did not provide any documentation on criteria that they 

had developed. They did, however, provide information on the five-year 

rule for self-sustainability and the sites’ activities, which we reviewed. 

To determine what additional performance measures EOWS has 

developed that track program outcomes, we interviewed officials from 

EOWS and the sites we visited. We reviewed pertinent documents, 

including EOWS policies and procedures, grant applications, and data 

collected pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993 (GPRA). In relation to the studies EOWS commissioned to develop 

program-wide performance measures, we interviewed the authors of the 

studies under way to discuss their research plans. At the time of our 

review, none of the studies on developing additional performance 

measures had been completed. 

 1

Sites funded under EOWS’s competitive application can be either the first Weed and Seed 

site in the jurisdiction that received official recognition or a new geographical area (that is, 

not contiguous with an existing or former target area) in a jurisdiction with an existing (or 

continuation) or former Weed and Seed site. Sites funded under EOWS’s continuation 

application are in their second, third, fourth, or fifth year of funding and implementing the 

Weed and Seed program. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 23 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

We conducted our audit work between June and December 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: GAO Site Visit Summary 

Page 24 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Table 2: Sites’ Weed and Seed Funding History—Fiscal Years 1999-2003 

Fiscal year 

Pittsburgh, Pa., 

grant funds

Charleston, S.C., 

grant funds 

North Charleston, 

S.C., grant funds

1999 $0 $175,000 $0

2000 $475,000 $125,000 $175,000

2001 $675,000 $225,000 $125,000

2002 $825,000a$225,000 $275,000

2003 $435,000b $275,000 $225,000

Total $2,410,000 $1,025,000 $800,000

Source: GAO site visits and EOWS data. 

a

Pittsburgh’s Weed and Seed funds for fiscal year 2002 were amended into the 2001 grant award. 

b

Pittsburgh’s Weed and Seed funds for fiscal year 2003 were amended into the 2001 grant award. 

Background 

Pittsburgh established its first Weed and Seed site, the Hill District, in 

1992. In 1995, Hazelwood became the second Pittsburgh site. In 1997 and 

1999, East Liberty and Homewood became the third and fourth Weed and 

Seed sites in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh currently receives funds for three sites: 

East Liberty, Hazelwood, and Homewood. The sites are located between 

the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers on the eastern side of the city. The 

population of the target area is 10,897 in East Liberty, 15,849 in 

Hazelwood, and 9,283 in Homewood. In fiscal year 2003, the Pittsburgh 

sites in total received $435,000 in Weed and Seed funding. See table 2 for 

the Weed and Seed funding history for Pittsburgh’s three sites. 

Activities 

Pittsburgh’s weeding activities include funding a drug violence initiative 

headed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a communitybased crime prevention activity coordinated with the police. Pittsburgh’s 

seeding activities include funding a drug education youth camp that 

provides children with leadership training and fitness tests, and a 

downtown revitalization program. See table 3 for examples of the types of 

activities funded by the Pittsburgh Weed and Seed program. 

Appendix II: GAO Site Visit Summary 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Appendix II: GAO Site Visit Summary 

Page 25 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Leveraging Efforts 

An important goal of the Weed and Seed program is for sites to leverage 

resources from sources other than EOWS in order to become selfsustaining. During our site visit and through documentation obtained from 

Pittsburgh Weed and Seed program staff, we identified several 

partnerships established by the Pittsburgh Weed and Seed program to 

leverage resources. These cooperative arrangements involved partners 

such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the Pittsburgh 

Harlequin Rugby Association. Table 4 provides specific examples of 

leveraging efforts that we identified.1

 Pittsburgh Weed and Seed program 

staff estimate that they coordinated and leveraged approximately 

$1.1 million in 2002. 

Background 

Charleston became a Weed and Seed site in the spring of 1992. The 

Charleston Weed and Seed target area includes approximately 8 square 

miles on the Charleston Peninsula and in the city of Charleston. The entire 

Weed and Seed site is located in Charleston’s Renewal Community. The 

population of the target area, encompassing 13 neighborhoods, is roughly 

17,000. In fiscal year 2003, the site received $275,000 in Weed and Seed 

funding. See table 2 for Charleston’s Weed and Seed funding history. 

Activities 

Charleston’s weeding activities include supporting a youth court with a 

Weed and Seed juvenile investigator and funding community policing foot 

patrols. Charleston’s seeding activities include supporting a police-youth 

after-school boxing program, and boarding up abandoned and vacant 

buildings to improve the appearance of the area. See table 3 for examples 

of the types of activities funded by the Charleston Weed and Seed 

program. 

Leveraging Efforts 

An important goal of the Weed and Seed program is for sites to leverage 

resources from sources other than EOWS in order to become selfsustaining. During our site visit and through documentation obtained from 

Charleston, we identified several partnerships established by the 

 1

GAO did not verify the funds leveraged by Weed and Seed sites. 

Charleston, S.C. 
Appendix II: GAO Site Visit Summary 

Page 26 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Charleston Weed and Seed program to leverage additional resources. 

These cooperative arrangements involved partners such as the FBI and the 

College of Charleston’s School of Education. Table 4 provides specific 

examples of leveraging efforts that we identified.2

 Charleston Weed and 

Seed program staff estimate that they were able to coordinate and 

leverage approximately $1 million in 2002. 

Background 

North Charleston was originally funded as a Weed and Seed site in August 

1993. The city of North Charleston is located about 7 miles north of the 

city of Charleston. Today, North Charleston has four target 

neighborhoods: Union Heights, Chicora/Cherokee, Accabee, and Liberty 

Hill. The population of the target area is 13,606. In fiscal year 2003, the site 

received $225,000 in Weed and Seed funding. See table 2 for North 

Charleston’s Weed and Seed funding history. 

Activities 

North Charleston’s weeding activities include participating in Operation 

Cease Fire with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, to reduce gun crime in target 

neighborhoods, and partnering with local law enforcement to improve the 

bike patrol program. North Charleston’s seeding activities include 

developing the Drug Education for Youth program and supporting an 

annual neighborhood cleanup. See table 3 for examples of the types of 

activities funded by the North Charleston Weed and Seed program. 

Leveraging Efforts 

An important goal of the Weed and Seed program is for sites to leverage 

resources from sources other than EOWS in order to become selfsustaining. During our site visit and through documentation obtained from 

North Charleston, we identified several partnerships established by the 

North Charleston Weed and Seed program to leverage resources. These 

cooperative arrangements involved partners such as the United States Air 

Force and the Medical University of South Carolina. Table 4 provides 

specific examples of leveraging efforts that we identified.3

 North 

Charleston Weed and Seed program staff estimate that they coordinated 

and leveraged approximately $3.3 million in 2002. 

 2

GAO did not verify the funds leveraged by Weed and Seed sites. 

3

GAO did not verify funds leveraged by Weed and Seed sites. 

North Charleston, S.C. 
Appendix II: GAO Site Visit Summary 

Page 27 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Table 3: Examples of Activities Funded by Weed and Seed in Pittsburgh, Charleston, and North Charleston 

Site 

Program 

component Activity Weed and Seed partner Description 

Pittsburgh, 

Pa. 

Law enforcement Safe Streets 

program 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) 

Drug violence initiative headed by the FBI. 

 Community 

policing 

Bike safety 

classes and 

registration 

Community residents and 

police officers 

Community-based crime prevention activity 

coordinated with the police. 

 Prevention, 

intervention, and 

treatment 

Drug Education 

For Youth 

(DEFY) Camp 

Boy Scouts of America, 

U.S. Air Force 

About 60 children participated in leadership training 

and fitness tests. 

 Neighborhood 

restoration 

Improved 

housing 

Hazelwood Initiative, Inc., 

and the Second Avenue 

Main Street Program 

A community-wide effort to reestablish the local 

business district, revitalize a 200-acre area, reclaim 

historic buildings, and build new housing. 

Charleston, 

S.C. 

Law enforcement Youth Court South Carolina Bar 

Association, Young 

Lawyers Division, 

Charleston Enterprise 

Community 

First-time juvenile offenders are tried by their peers 

and given an opportunity to improve their behavior. 

 Community 

policing 

Foot patrols Charleston Weed and 

Seed Patrol Officers, 

Charleston Police 

Department 

Weed and Seed officers patrol the community on 

foot. 

 Prevention, 

intervention, and 

treatment 

Police Athletic 

League Boxing 

Police Athletic League Participants include junior and senior boxers and 

coaches. 

 Neighborhood 

restoration 

Boarding up 

abandoned and 

vacant buildings 

Charleston Police 

Department, Maintenance 

Division 

The city boarded up abandoned and vacant 

buildings in Weed and Seed neighborhoods. 

North 

Charleston, 

S.C. 

Law enforcement Cease Fire 

program 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

North Charleston Police 

Department 

A gun control program that began in January 2003 

to reduce gun crime in target areas. 

 Community 

policing 

Bike patrol North Charleston Police 

Department 

Two officers on bike patrol are dedicated 

exclusively to the Weed and Seed target area. 

 Prevention, 

intervention, and 

treatment 

DEFY program Charleston Air Force Base Weed and Seed staff was developing a DEFY 

program for participants from the Weed and Seed 

target area. 

 Neighborhood 

restoration 

Neighborhood 

cleanup 

Neighborhood residents An annual neighborhood cleanup was held in April 

2003. 

Source: GAO site visits and EOWS. 
Appendix II: GAO Site Visit Summary 

Page 28 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Table 4: Examples of Leveraging Efforts at Weed and Seed Sites in Pittsburgh, Charleston, and North Charleston 

Weed and Seed 

site 

Type of partnership 

or cooperative 

arrangement 

Name of partner or 

cooperative 

arrangement Description 

Pittsburgh, Pa. Federal government FBI The FBI leads the Safe Streets program in Pittsburgh to 

reduce street gang and drug related violence. 

 State government State police State Police officers are assisting the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

in implementing Justice’s Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) 

initiative to reduce gun violence. 

 Local government, 

university 

Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD) and 

University of Pittsburgh 

Medical Center (UPMC) 

In March and April 2000, Pittsburgh began a partnership with 

ACHD, UPMC, and others to conduct medical and dental 

screening at community events. The first major effort of the 

partnership was a lead abatement project, which identified 

and cleaned contaminated dwellings. The Pittsburgh Urban 

Redevelopment Authority and the Housing Authority also 

participated in this effort. 

 Local community Pittsburgh Harlequins 

Rugby Association 

The partnership with the Harlequins began in March 2001. 

The Harlequins established two teams of 20 children to play 

touch rugby while also incorporating training in teamwork, 

partnership, and discipline into the sport. 

Charleston, S.C. Federal government FBI The FBI leads the Charleston Safe Streets Task Force to 

reduce drug-related activities. 

 Local government Charleston Police 

Department 

Police officers train youth in law enforcement procedures 

and tactics as well as physical training. The goal of this 

program is to instill responsibility in participants and to 

prepare them for possible careers in law enforcement. 

 Local college College of Charleston’s 

School of Education 

Graduate interns tutor students from Safe Havens. 

North Charleston, 

S.C. 

Federal government U.S. Air Force The DEFY program will be conducted year-round, through a 

partnership with the Air Force. 

 Local government North Charleston Police 

Department 

Police officers instruct youth on crime prevention during 

school breaks at Safe Havens. 

 Local university Medical University of 

South Carolina Crime 

Victims Center 

Through this partnership, information was distributed to 

Hispanic families in the Weed and Seed target area about a 

program designed to provide medical services to Hispanic 

families. 

Source: GAO site visits and EOWS. 

Note: Grantees also receive funds from other federal programs and non-federal funds. 
Appendix III: Proposed Legislation Could 

Affect Self-Sustainability 

Page 29 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Proposed legislation could affect self-sustainability for Weed and Seed 

sites by mandating that EOWS impose more rigorous requirements on its 

grantees, similar to some other Justice programs. Unlike some other 

Justice discretionary grant programs, the law establishing the Weed and 

Seed program currently does not have a matching funding requirement,1

nor does it limit the maximum number of years a grantee can receive 

funding.2

 H.R. 3036, a bill to reauthorize the Department of Justice for 

fiscal years 2004 through 2006, was introduced on September 9, 2003. This 

bill includes a provision that would limit the federal contribution to 

75 percent of the total Weed and Seed program costs. The bill would also 

impose limitations on the duration of grants funded under the Weed and 

Seed program, limiting to 10 the total number of fiscal years a grantee may 

receive grants. Additionally, the bill requires that in order for a grantee to 

be eligible for a grant, it must agree to formulate a timely and effective 

plan to independently sustain the Weed and Seed program when federal 

funding ends. 

Currently there are other federal grant programs that require a funding 

match and a limit on the duration of grant awards.3

 For example, the DrugFree Communities Support Program (DFCSP) and Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS) both have matching requirements and clearly 

specify the number of years a grantee may be funded. DFCSP is a 

discretionary grant program with a budget of about $60 million in fiscal 

year 2003. DFCSP requires a dollar-for-dollar match, limits grantees to no 

more than 5 years of funding, and reduces awards by 25 percent in the 

fourth and fifth years. The COPS program, with a budget of about 

$929 million in fiscal year 2003, generally requires grantees to contribute 

 1

A matching requirement requires grant recipients to contribute their own funds to obtain 

federal grant funds. The Weed and Seed program is authorized and funded by the 

Department of Justice annual appropriation acts. These acts have not included either a 

requirement for matching funds or a limitation on the maximum number of years a grantee 

may receive funding. See for example, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 

Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, P.L. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2454. 

2

As discussed earlier, beginning in 1999, EOWS imposed a 5-year site expansion rule, under 

which a site is awarded funding for 5 years and may receive an additional 5 years of 

funding if the majority of funds are shifted to a new site. This is not a requirement imposed 

by the law. 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help 

Federal Resources Go Further, GAO/AIMD-97-7 (Washington, D.C.: December 1996). 

Appendix III: Proposed Legislation Could 

Affect Self-Sustainability 
Appendix III: Proposed Legislation Could 

Affect Self-Sustainability 

Page 30 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

25 percent of the costs of the program. The federal share of a COPS grant 

that covers more than 1 year must decline year to year.4

 4

Grants for hiring and rehiring may be renewed for up to 5 years. Grants for other purposes 

may not cover more than 3 years. 
Appendix IV: Executive Office for Weed and 

Seed Selected Activities 

Page 31 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

The local U.S. 

Attorney’s Office 

establishes a steering 

committee, which 

establishes clear 

roles and 

responsibilities for the 

site’s organizational 

and management 

structure.a

The steering committee continually 

educates, guides, and reevaluates 

site management. 

 

The steering 

committee meets 

monthly and develops 

a job description for 

the site coordinator. 

Steering committee meets at least 

monthly. 

Steering committee 

and organizational 

structure continue to 

function. Steering 

committee meets at 

least quarterly. 

→ → 

The grantee and the 

site coordinator 

establish procedures 

for tracking grant 

funds and 

expenditures. 

The grantee and/or local U.S. 

Attorney’s Office evaluates the site 

coordinator’s job performance, 

with input from the steering 

committee.b

The site coordinator and the 

steering committee work together 

to ensure timely expenditure of 

grant funds. 

→ → → 

Based on the time 

line, goals, and 

objectives 

established by the 

site’s official 

recognition,c

 the site 

begins implementing 

strategies and 

developing baseline 

data, addressing the 

four required program 

elements.d

The site’s strategy to achieve 

measurable outcomes in the four 

required program areas (especially 

law enforcement/community 

policing) is on track. The site 

continues to collect data related to 

goals and objectives. 

The site continues to 

implement strategy 

for achieving goals 

and objectives in all 

four required program 

elements. 

→ The site makes plans to 

continue community 

development efforts and 

strategic planning 

through various funding 

sources. 

The site begins to 

publicize the 

program, to recruit 

neighborhood 

leaders, and to 

mobilize the 

community. 

The site continues program 

publicity and outreach to recruit 

neighborhood leaders and 

mobilize community. 

The site continues 

program publicity and 

outreach efforts to 

recruit neighborhood 

leaders and to 

mobilize the 

community while 

identifying and 

building sustainable 

leadership among 

community members. 

The site continues 

program publicity and 

outreach efforts to 

mobilize community 

and recruit new 

community leaders. 

The site’s community 

leaders are working to 

sustain efforts and 

continue community 

mobilization. 

Appendix IV: Executive Office for Weed and 

Seed Selected Activities 
Appendix IV: Executive Office for Weed and 

Seed Selected Activities 

Page 32 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

The site begins 

coordinating its 

efforts with related 

local initiatives, 

particularly law 

enforcement 

resources and 

activities. 

The site continues to coordinate its 

efforts with local initiatives, 

particularly programs with local 

parks and recreation departments. 

The Weed and Seed 

effort begins to be 

included in 

city/community plans.

Community leaders 

have established 

working relationships 

with local officials. 

The Weed and Seed 

community is included in 

city/community planning. 

 The steering committee develops 

and implements the special 

emphasis program based on 

community needs. 

The special emphasis 

program is fully 

operational. 

 

The site submits 

timely grant 

expenditure reports to 

Executive Office for 

Weed and Seed and 

Office of Justice 

Programs. 

→ → → → 

The site submits 

timely progress 

reports, providing 

program outcome 

information related to 

the achievement of 

the goals and 

objectives stated in 

the official recognition 

and grant 

applications. 

→ → → The site submits a final 

progress report. 

 The site communicates regularly 

with all partners, including U.S. 

Attorney’s Office, Executive Office 

for Weed and Seed, and 

community members, using 

newsletters, faxes, neighborhood 

visits, e-mail, community meetings, 

and so forth. 

→ → 

The steering 

committee and the 

site coordinator 

evaluate site 

progress to determine 

site’s technical 

assistance needs, if 

any. 

→ → The steering 

committee and site 

coordinator review 

previous years’ grant 

applications to 

determine plans for 

final year of official 

recognition. 

The steering committee 

determines if there is a 

need to continue the 

program in other 

neighborhoods based on 

the program. 
Appendix IV: Executive Office for Weed and 

Seed Selected Activities 

Page 33 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

The site develops 

operating plans for 

next year. 

→ → → → 

The site begins 

developing strategies 

for long-term selfsustainment. → 

The site establishes a 

subcommittee to look 

for additional funding 

or in-kind resources 

to sustain the 

program. 

Subcommittee 

continues to search for 

additional resources to 

sustain the program. → 

 The site begins to develop plans 

for evaluating its programs. 

The site identifies an 

evaluation tool and 

begins developing an 

evaluation based on 

Executive Office for 

Weed and Seed site 

evaluation literature. 

The site undergoes 

program evaluation to 

assess overall 

effectiveness of official 

recognition strategy 

implementation. 

By the end of the year, 

the site releases its full 

evaluation report, 

assessing the overall 

program 

accomplishments and its 

effectiveness. 

Source: EOWS data. 

Note: Arrow indicates action from the previous year continues to the current year. 

a

A site is a geographically defined area ranging in size from several neighborhood blocks to several 

square miles. With the input of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the steering committee, each site 

develops and implements its own Weed and Seed strategy. 

b

A grantee is an entity that receives funding from EOWS to implement the Weed and Seed program. 

The grantee distributes the funds to sites and is responsible for ensuring that sites comply with the 

terms of the grant. A grantee may have more than one site. 

c

Official recognition is a designation given to a grantee by EOWS that signifies that EOWS has 

approved the grantee’s Weed and Seed strategy in a specific site. A grantee must receive official 

recognition from EOWS before a grantee can apply for funding. Official recognition requires, among 

other things, that the site develop a management plan and a comprehensive strategy for 

implementing the Weed and Seed strategy. 

d

The four required program elements that sites are required to address are (1) law enforcement; 

(2) community policing; (3) crime and substance prevention, intervention, and treatment; and 

(4) neighborhood restoration. 
Appendix V: Activity Data Collected by EOWS 

in Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 34 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Activity data collected by EOWS 

1. Does site include a multijurisdictional task force 

2. Does site participate in Project Safe Neighborhoods 

3. Does site have foot patrols 

4. Does site have bike patrols 

5. Does site have substations 

6. Does site have crime watch 

7. Do police participate in community meetings 

8. Number of homicides for 3 preceding calendar years for Weed 

 and Seed site 

9. Number of homicides for 3 preceding calendar years for entire 

 jurisdiction 

10. Number of total drug arrestsa

11. Number of heroin drug arrests 

12. Number of cocaine (not including crack) drug arrests 

13. Number of crack cocaine drug arrests 

14. Number of marijuana drug arrests 

15. Number of methamphetamines only drug arrests 

16. Number of safe haven facilities 

17. Number of safe havens receiving EOWS funding 

18. Does site provide academic courses and tutoring 

19. Does site provide mentoring 

20. Does site provide prevention education 

21. Does site provide dispute resolution and mediation 

22. Does site provide recreation and athletics 

23. Does site provide job training 

24. Does site provide job placement 

25. Does site provide antidrug education 

26. Does site provide community police co-located in safe 

 haven 

27. Does site provide safe corridors (school escorts for 

 children) 

28. Does site provide summer day camp 

29. Does site provide youth leadership training 

30. Does site provide boys and girls club programs 

31. Does site provide scouting programs 

32. Does site provide military cadet training 

33. Does site provide antigang education and training 

Appendix V: Activity Data Collected by 

EOWS in Fiscal Year 2003 
Appendix V: Activity Data Collected by EOWS 

in Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 35 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Activity data collected by EOWS 

34. Does site provide Communities in Schools programs 

35. Does site provide performance or applied arts programs 

36. Does site provide victim assistance programs 

37. Does site provide community projects, such as cleanups 

38. Does site provide general health-screening services 

39. Does site provide lead-poisoning-screening service 

40. Number of persons receiving safe haven services 

41. Number of community development corporations within 

 site area 

42. Is site constructing and renovating housing 

 developments 

43. Is site constructing and renovating commercial 

 developments 

44. Is site constructing and renovating business and 

 community partnerships 

45. Number of community cleanups done using EOWS 

 support 

46. Do Weed and Seed activities relate to or involve 

 Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots 

47. Do Weed and Seed activities relate to or involve 

 Brownfields Cleanup and Revolving Load Fund Pilots 

48. Do Weed and Seed activities relate to or involve 

 Brownfields Showcase Communities 

49. Do Weed and Seed activities relate to or involve 

 Brownfields Tax Incentive 

50. Source of non-EOWS fundingb

51. Amount of non-EOWS grant funding 

52. Source and type of in-kind contributions 

Source: EOWS data. 

a

In addition to the number of drug arrests, EOWS also requests that each site report the number of 

sale, manufacturing, and possession drug arrests for each type of drug. 

b

Non-EOWS grant funding includes funding from other federal, state, local, and private sources. 
Appendix VI: Description of EOWS’s Ongoing 

and Completed Studies 

Page 36 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Title of study and 

research partner Purpose of study 

When results are 

expected 

A Comparison of 

Homicide Trends in 

Local Weed and Seed 

Sites Relative to Their 

Host Jurisdictions, 

1996 to 2001 

Justice Research and 

Statistics Association 

(JRSA) 

Compare homicides in Weed and Seed sites with homicides in the jurisdictions that 

sites are located in, to determine whether homicides will decline faster in Weed and 

Seed sites than in the remainder of the jurisdiction. 

Report was expected 

in January 2004 but 

was issued in 

November 2003 

Performance Indicator 

Study 

Urban Institute 

Develop additional performance indicators that will be used by EOWS and Weed and 

Seed sites to evaluate program performance with respect to crime control. 

March 2004 

Weed and Seed Crime 

Pattern Data Collection 

Justice Research and 

Statistics Association 

Summarize the types of crime selected as “target” crimes by Weed and Seed sites 

(sites choose three crimes) to determine crime reduction strategies. Assess the 

degree of success of Weed and Seed sites by analyzing the percentage of reduction 

in crime compared with the percentage in the rest of the jurisdiction that they are 

located in. 

March 2004 

Meta-Analysis 

Evaluation 

Justice Research and 

Statistics Association 

Summarize the completed evaluations of individual Weed and Seed sites. The 

analysis will include more than 80 studies. JRSA’s preliminary analysis (March 3, 

2003) includes 36 evaluations. Of the 36 evaluations, JRSA determined that 5 were 

process, 19 were impact, and 9 were both process and impact evaluations. The 

remaining 3 evaluations were not identified as process or impact. 

Note: A process evaluation addresses whether the program is working as intended. 

An impact evaluation isolates the effects of a particular program or factor from all 

other potential contributing factors that could also effect change. 

Mid 2004 

Local Pilot Evaluations 

Local researchers 

Conduct local evaluations of Weed and Seed sites. In fiscal year 2002, EOWS funded 

13 local evaluations. Each site contracts with its own researcher. 

Mid 2004 

Source: EOWS and research organizations. 

Appendix VI: Description of EOWS’s Ongoing 

and Completed Studies 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 

Page 37 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 

Page 38 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 

Page 39 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 

Page 40 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 

Page 41 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 42 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Laurie Ekstrand (202) 512-2758 

Weldon McPhail (202) 512-8644 

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made key 

contributions to this report: Lisa G. Shibata, Kirstin B. L. Nelson, Cady L. 

Summers, David Alexander, Sidney Schwartz, Kevin L. Jackson, Elizabeth 

Curda, Tom James, Denise Fantone, Jan Montgomery, Ann H. Finley, 

Katherine M. Davis, and Leo Barbour. 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 43 GAO-04-245 Efforts to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Law Enforcement: Better Performance Measures Needed to Assess 

Results of Justice’s Office of Science and Technology, GAO-04-198. 

Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2003. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1999. 

Federal Grants: More Can Be Done to Improve Weed and Seed Program 

Management. GAO/GGD-99-110. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 1999. 

Small Business Administration: Enhancements Needed for Loan 

Monitoring System Benchmark Study. GAO/AIMD-99-165. Washington, 

D.C.: May 14, 1999. 

Managing for Results: Measuring Program Results That Are Under 

Limited Federal Control. GAO/GGD-99-16. Washington, D.C.: December 

11, 1998. 

Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance. 

GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 1997. 

Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go 

Further. GAO/AIMD-97-7. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 1996. 

Highway Safety: Safety Belts Use Laws Save Lives and Reduce Costs to 

Society. GAO/RCED-92-106. Washington, D.C.: May 1992. 

Related GAO Products 

(440191) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

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

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs