The Weed and Seed Program is a DOJ discretionary grant program that provides funding to community grantees to help prevent and control crime and improve the quality of life in targeted high-crime neighborhoods across the country. It is a joint federal, state, and local program for coordinated law enforcement and neighborhood reinvestment. Program funding is to support Weed and Seed grantee neighborhood sites and to provide training and technical assistance. The Weed and Seed Program has grown dramatically since it began in fiscal year 1991 with three pilot sites and a relatively small investment of federal resources. For example, between fiscal years 1995 and 1998, the number of Weed and Seed sites increased from 36 to 177, while the total annual program budget increased (in constant 1998 dollars) from about $34 million to $43 million. In addition, during the same time period, the average grant awarded per site decreased (in constant 1998 dollars) from about $786,000 to $260,000. In fiscal year 1999, with a budget of $49 million, DOJ plans to award grants to about 200 Weed and Seed sites. See appendix I for a map showing the locations and numbers of Weed and Seed sites funded in fiscal year 1998. EOWS is responsible for the national management and administration of the Weed and Seed Program, including developing policy and providing federal guidance and oversight. EOWS currently administers the Weed and Seed Program with a staff of 4 management officials, 12 grant monitors, 7 support staff, 2 detailees, 3 contractors, and 4 interns. Before interested communities can apply for a Weed and Seed grant, they must first be approved for official recognition by EOWS. Official recognition requires the U.S. Attorney in the area where the Weed and Seed site is to be located to organize a local steering committee. The steering committee, which can be made up of various federal, state, and local representatives, including residents, is responsible for local administration of the program. For official recognition, a site is also required to develop a management plan, engage residents and other partners in its activities, and develop a comprehensive strategy to weed out crime and gang activity and to seed the area with social services, economic services, and economic revitalization. The four required elements of the Weed and Seed Program are (1) law enforcement; (2) community policing; (3) crime and substance prevention, intervention, and treatment; and (4) neighborhood restoration. According to EOWS, law enforcement should attempt to eliminate the most violent offenders by coordinating and integrating the efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. The objective of community policing is to raise the level of citizen and community involvement in crime prevention and intervention activities. Crime and substance abuse prevention, intervention, and treatment should include youth services, school programs, community and social programs, and support groups. Finally, neighborhood restoration should focus on distressed neighborhoods through economic and housing development. Weed and Seed sites fund a variety of law enforcement and community activities. For example, law enforcement-funded activities ranged from participation in a multijurisdictional, interagency, antidrug task force to conducting bike and foot patrols in the community. To assess how EOWS manages the Weed and Seed Program, we reviewed (1) the criteria used to determine which new and existing sites should be qualified for funding and (2) the policies and guidance that EOWS provides to applicants. To gather this information, we interviewed officials from DOJ and EOWS and reviewed pertinent documents, including guidance set forth in the Weed and Seed Program Implementation Manual, official recognition and grant applications, and budget reports. In addition, we judgmentally selected 12 of 70 fiscal year 1999 official recognition files for review. These 12 files included 3 files from each of the 4 categories that EOWS used in making their official recognition determinations. Further, we reviewed the fiscal year 1999 qualification funding decisions for the 177 sites that were in existence in fiscal year 1998. To assess how EOWS monitors grant use, we reviewed EOWS program grant guidance, the EOWS monitoring guide to be used by grant monitors when conducting site visits, and the grant files for the five Weed and Seed sites that we visited: Atlanta, GA; Dyersburg, TN; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA; and Woburn, MA. We judgmentally selected these 5 sites from the 177 sites funded in fiscal year 1998 (1) to obtain a mix of geographic locations, populations, and lengths of time in existence and (2) on the basis of our discussions with EOWS management. These locations were not selected to be representative of all Weed and Seed sites. We also reviewed selected site visit monitoring reports prepared by grant monitors for these sites and quarterly financial status reports and biannual progress reports submitted in fiscal year 1998. We interviewed EOWS management officials, grant monitors, and coordinators at these five sites regarding procedures used for monitoring Weed and Seed sites. To assess how EOWS determines when sites have become self-sustaining and how EOWS and selected sites are measuring the success of their Weed and Seed activities, we performed site visits at the five Weed and Seed locations previously cited. We also surveyed, by mail, the 87 sites that had been awarded Weed and Seed grants since September 30, 1996. We received usable responses from 74 of the 87 sites, or 85 percent. Our questionnaire asked Weed and Seed site coordinators to provide current information, by January 29, 1999, about their sites, such as (1) actions taken to become self-sustaining, (2) partnerships or cooperative arrangements established with other entities, and (3) performance indicators used to measure the sites’ success. See appendix II for a copy of the questionnaire, including responses. In developing the questionnaire, we asked EOWS management officials to review several drafts of the document. In addition, we pretested the questionnaire by telephone with several Weed and Seed site coordinators. We conducted the survey from January to April, 1999. To determine the performance indicators currently in place and their adequacy in measuring program success, we interviewed officials from EOWS and the five sites that we visited. We also reviewed pertinent documents, including EOWS policies and guidance, grant applications, and data collected pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and from our survey results. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed. On June 23, 1999, we met with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and the Director, EOWS, and members of his staff to discuss the draft report. The Assistant Attorney General provided written comments on the draft report on July 1, 1999, which are discussed near the end of this letter and reprinted in appendix IV. We did our audit work between October 1998 and May 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. EOWS does not have an adequate internal control requiring that new and existing site qualification for funding decisions always be fully documented. Because of this, EOWS cannot ensure that it is making the best allocation of available funds when it makes these decisions. The Comptroller General’s guidance on internal controls in the federal government, Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, requires that these systems and all transactions and significant events are to be clearly documented, and that the documentation is to be readily available for examination. Documentation of transactions or other significant events should be complete and accurate and should facilitate tracing the transaction or event and related information from before it occurs, while it is in process, to after it is completed. EOWS’ new site funding qualification decisions were not always fully documented. EOWS management officials were able to provide us with some documentation for 12 of the 70 fiscal year 1999 new site funding qualification decisions we reviewed. However, for 5 of these 12 decisions we identified inconsistencies between the documentation and the decisions. The available documentation was insufficient for us to determine how these inconsistencies were reconciled. Therefore, we could not determine the basis and rationale for these five decisions. The first step in the new site funding qualification process is for EOWS to officially recognize a site’s eligibility to apply for formal involvement in the Weed and Seed Program. According to EOWS management officials, in fiscal year 1999, they created a new official recognition process, which evolved from approving all applicants, to creating a competitive process under which all applicants would not be approved. As part of this new process, EOWS management officials said they were to consider recommendations made by external consultants and EOWS grant monitors. They also were to consider the number of sites already funded within the U.S. Attorney’s district, the extent of support provided by that U.S. Attorney’s office to those sites, and insights obtained from the U.S. Attorneys for applications that met or almost met all official recognition requirements. For fiscal year 1999, EOWS received applications for official recognition from 70 potential sites, and it approved 27 sites. The 27 sites were invited to apply for fiscal year 1999 funding contingent upon the completion of all official recognition requirements. We reviewed 12 of the 70 fiscal year 1999 official recognition files, and, for 5 of the site qualification decisions, we identified inconsistencies among the external consultant recommendations, grant monitor recommendations, and EOWS management decisions. The available documentation was insufficient for us to determine how these inconsistencies were reconciled. Therefore, we could not determine the basis and rationale for the decisions. For example, documentation for two of the files showed that the external consultants and EOWS grant monitors had recommended that the sites not be officially recognized, but EOWS management had approved the sites. According to EOWS management officials, these approvals were granted on the basis of additional information provided by the local U.S. Attorneys; however, this additional information was not documented by EOWS. EOWS did not always fully document how it made its decisions on whether to qualify the 177 existing sites for continued funding and special projectfunding. Although EOWS officials could provide us with documentation for some of the information considered for existing sites, such as unspent grant award balances and compliance with reporting requirements, this documentation was not sufficient for us to determine the basis and rationale for the decisions to qualify 164 of the 177 existing sites for continued funding. EOWS, however, documented the basis and rationale for the 13 sites that it decided to disqualify for continued funding. In addition, EOWS could not provide us with documentation regarding how it made its special project funding qualification decisions. Since fiscal year 1991, the total annual Weed and Seed Program’s budget has increased (in 1998 constant dollars) from about $589,000 to about $49 million. In addition, the number of Weed and Seed Program grant awards has grown dramatically since fiscal year 1995, while the average grant has decreased substantially. For example, in fiscal year 1995, EOWS awarded grants to 36 sites, with an average grant of about $786,000 (in 1998 constant dollars). In fiscal year 1998, however, EOWS awarded grants to 177 sites, with an average grant award of $260,000. See table 1 for fiscal years 1991-99 data on the Weed and Seed Program, including EOWS budget and average site funding history. For fiscal year 1999, EOWS management officials decided for the first time not to qualify for funding all existing sites that met grant requirements. In fiscal year 1999, EOWS decided to disqualify for funding 13 of the 177 sites that were funded in fiscal year 1998. EOWS officials developed a site analysis matrix to assist them in deciding which sites to qualify for funding. This matrix contained information about all 177 sites, such as unspent grant award balances over $350,000 and each site’s compliance with DOJ’s reporting requirements. According to EOWS management officials, in making their final decisions they also considered the recommendations made by EOWS grant monitors and their own personal knowledge of the sites. For the 13 sites that were disqualified for funding in fiscal year 1999, EOWS documented the basis and rationale for these decisions by sending a letter to each site describing the reasons for its decision. However, from our review of the available documentation for the remaining 164 sites, this documentation was insufficient to determine the basis and rationale for these qualification decisions. For example, in fiscal year 1999, one site was qualified for funding even though it had a grant award balance of over $350,000 and the EOWS grant monitor had recommended that the site not receive funding. Two other sites were also qualified for funding for fiscal year 1999 even though they had grant award balances over $350,000 and had not filed all of the required financial and progress reports. Further, the EOWS grant monitor recommended that one of these sites not receive fiscal 1999 funding due to its delays in spending its first two awards. According to his report, “the grantee is so far behind that a year without funding will allow them to catch up and be on track again.” EOWS management officials told us their decisions to qualify these sites for funding was based on their personal knowledge of these sites’ activities. However, we were not able to determine the basis and rationale for these decisions because they were not documented in the information provided to us by EOWS. EOWS has also qualified existing sites to receive funding for special projects. For example, in fiscal year 1998, EOWS qualified sites for funding of $1,043,334 for the Mobile Community Outreach Police Stations (MCOPS); $1,000,000 for the Kids Safe Program; and $539,797 for Kids House. Since written procedures for qualifying sites for special projects had not been developed and the basis and rationale for these decisions had not been documented, we could not determine how these decisions were made. EOWS management officials told us that they made these decisions on the basis of what they perceived as the needs of particular Weed and Seed sites after contacting the sites and speaking with EOWS grant monitors. See table 2 for a summary of EOWS’ funding allocations for fiscal year 1998. EOWS did not always ensure that local Weed and Seed sites complied with critical grant requirements. For example, on the basis of our review of the site analysis matrix provided to us by EOWS, almost one-half of the 177 existing sites that were funded in fiscal year 1998 had not submitted all of the required progress reports. In addition, EOWS grant monitors did not always document the results of their site visits as required by EOWS guidance. EOWS requires semiannual progress reports describing site activities during the reporting period and the status or accomplishment of program objectives. According to EOWS officials, progress reports are an important tool to help EOWS management officials and grant monitors determine how sites are meeting program objectives and to assist them in making future grant qualification decisions. Our review of the EOWS site analysis matrix showed that as of December 1998, 80, or 45 percent, of the 177 sites had not submitted these required progress reports. In addition, EOWS requires the sites to provide program data, such as crime statistics and safe haven program attendance, to assess program results. Our review of the EOWS site analysis matrix showed that as of December 1998, 20, or 11 percent, of the 177 sites had not submitted the required data. Further, according to the EOWS’ monitoring guide, grant monitors are to conduct site visits every 18 months and monitor Weed and Seed sites’ compliance with grant requirements through desk reviews, technical assistance, and telephone contacts on a continuing basis. The guide instructs grant monitors to prepare a site visit report. According to EOWS officials, documentation of these visits is an important tool for EOWS grant monitors to convey to EOWS management officials how well sites are complying with grant requirements and EOWS to use in making existing site funding qualification decisions. According to EOWS management officials, the grant monitors have not always documented their site visits due to the large number of sites they are responsible for monitoring—as many as 23 sites per monitor. EOWS management officials said that they hired four additional grant monitors in fiscal year 1999, which should decrease the number of sites that each grant monitor is responsible for monitoring. An important goal of the Weed and Seed is the self-sustainment of local Weed and Seed sites through the leveraging of additional resources from non-EOWS sources. However, EOWS has not developed criteria to determine (1) when sites have become self-sustaining and (2) when to reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed grant funds. Although many grantees have received Weed and Seed funding for several years, EOWS has not reduced or withdrawn any Weed and Seed grantee’s funds because of progress their site’s had made toward the goal of becoming self-sustaining. Although EOWS does not know what progress sites have made toward self-sustainment, most of the sites we visited and surveyed reported making efforts toward that goal. While self-sustainment is an important goal of the Weed and Seed Program, EOWS has not developed specific criteria to determine when sites have become self-sustaining or determined the progress sites had made toward achieving this goal. The EOWS Executive Director and EOWS documents stated that a critical goal of the program is for sites to become self-sustaining by leveraging Weed and Seed grant funds with resources from other public and private sources. In 1995, the DOJ Inspector General reported that the Weed and Seed Program was founded on the premise that federal funding would continue for a finite period after which a Weed and Seed site would be self-sustaining. We identified partnerships at each of the five sites we visited that resulted in the leveraging of additional resources for these sites. For example, at one site, the city police department and the city school system each provided a staff member to fill Weed and Seed administrative positions as a part of their other duties so that Weed and Seed funds could be used for other purposes and not spent on funding for administrative positions. At another site, a local business donated computers to be used in computer classes for children. Most of the sites that responded to our survey indicated that they had developed partnerships and arrangements with other groups to move toward the goal of becoming self-sustaining. Of the 74 sites responding to our survey, 72 indicated that they had developed partnerships or cooperative arrangements with other government or nongovernment groups. For example, 59 sites responded that they had developed partnerships with local government agencies, while 54 indicated that they had developed such arrangements with nonprofit agencies. Some respondents reported establishing partnerships with various groups, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a state public health department, city parks and recreation departments, and local businesses. EOWS does not have criteria for determining whether or the extent to which a site has become self-sustaining and whether funds could be reduced or withdrawn. EOWS management officials said that, to date, no site’s funding has been reduced or withdrawn as a result of the site’s efforts to become self-sustaining. In addition, these officials said that they were reluctant to reduce or withdraw funding because of a concern that sites may not continue to implement the Weed and Seed Program. Although EOWS has not developed criteria to reduce or withdraw sites’ funding if they were to become self-sustaining, EOWS management officials said that beginning in the Year 2000, they would require sites to reapply for official recognition every 5 years and would encourage them to expand to additional sites. According to EOWS management officials, this new policy, which was made during the course of our review, is intended to determine whether sites still need funding. To obtain official recognition, sites must describe intended partnerships with other federal, state, and local governments and private sector agencies to leverage additional resources. For example, a site would be required to stipulate the level of resources that are committed by its partners. However, without criteria to determine when sites become self-sustaining, EOWS does not have a basis or rationale for determining when to reduce or withdraw sites’ funds. EOWS has developed various performance indicators, in an attempt to respond to GPRA. GPRA seeks to shift the focus of federal management and decisionmaking away from activities performed, to focusing on results or outcomes of activities undertaken. However, the indicators EOWS used to measure the success of the Weed and Seed Program still generally track activities rather than results or outcomes. Weed and Seed sites also used other indicators to measure the results of their individual programs, but these indicators also primarily measured activities, not outcomes. While the performance indicators were generally not sufficient to adequately measure program results, most of the local officials and residents with whom we spoke during our site visits were very satisfied with the activities funded by the local Weed and Seed programs. In an attempt to measure the results of sites’ weeding efforts, EOWS tracks law enforcement information, such as community-policing activities. EOWS requires each site to have a community-policing component to its program. Community policing involves law enforcement working closely with community residents to develop solutions to violent and drug-related crime and serves as a stimulus for community mobilization. Before 1999, EOWS tracked officer duty time spent in the Weed and Seed area; the percentage of police officer duty hours funded by Weed and Seed; certain serious crimes, such as violent and property crimes; and the number of arrests. Recently, EOWS management officials decided to eliminate the reporting of all of these crimes, except for homicides, because they believed that doing so would improve the accuracy and reliability of the data reported by reducing the amount of data collected by Weed and Seed sites. In addition, EOWS currently requires sites to report whether they have (1) foot patrols, (2) bike patrols, (3) police substations, (4) crime watches, and (5) police participation in community meetings. Although these indicators are useful in tracking the types of weeding activities engaged in at the local sites, they generally do not measure outcomes. To measure the results of seeding activities, EOWS tracks safe haven program attendance. Before 1999, EOWS tracked the total number of people who attended the safe haven program over a 6-month period, but EOWS recently reduced the tracking period to 1 week a year. EOWS management officials said that they made the above changes to better measure the results of both weeding and seeding activities. However, these indicators still generally measure activities rather than results. For example, EOWS tracks the number of people who attended safe havens rather than assessing program results from these safe havens, such as attendees’ academic improvement after completing a tutoring program provided at the safe haven. The responses to our survey also show that the performance measures used by individual sites generally tracked activities, not results. While most sites reported that they have their own measures of success, these measures varied widely, including counting the number of newspaper articles about their Weed and Seed site and recording the number of drug- related cases prosecuted. The three most commonly reported measures of success by survey respondents were crime statistics, the number of participants in Weed and Seed-sponsored activities, and the level of community involvement. Further, 12 sites conducted surveys to gain the perspective of community residents, and 4 sites reported on recidivism rates. Using crime statistics and recidivism rates as performance measures could be useful. However, these measures can also present some methodological challenges because it is difficult to draw a direct causal link between crime or recidivism rates and Weed and Seed Program activities. For example, other explanations for crime rate fluctuations, such as economic trends and other law enforcement initiatives, could also be responsible for the observed outcomes. Therefore, if these measures are used, any analysis that attempts to draw the causal link should attempt to control for alternative explanations. From the information provided to us by Weed and Seed sites, it remains unclear whether sites that measure crime and recidivism rates controlled for other factors that may have contributed to changes in these rates. A recently released study was conducted by Abt Associates Inc. for DOJ on the effectiveness of the Weed and Seed Program. This study involved eight Weed and Seed Program sites and, among other activities, attempted to measure crime trends at each site. Overall, the study indicated mixed results across the sites—there were significant favorable effects in the key outcome measures used in the Abt study for some cities and some time periods, while the results on outcome measures in other cities were not as favorable. The study acknowledged the difficulty in drawing a causal link and noted that the evidence is modest in terms of statistical significance. Even though the performance indicators were not sufficient to adequately measure program results, most of the local officials with whom we spoke during our site visits were very satisfied with the activities funded by the local Weed and Seed programs. These officials, such as mayors, city administrators, U.S. attorneys, and high-ranking police officers, noted that the key ingredient to the Weed and Seed programs’ success was the commitment of the mayors’ and U.S. Attorneys’ offices and civic and business leaders. Local sites funded a wide variety of law enforcement and community activities to implement the Weed and Seed strategy. Law enforcement- funded activities ranged from participation in a multijurisdictional, interagency, violent crime task force to community bike and foot patrols. Community-funded activities ranged from sponsoring a Black History Month program at a local high school to providing life-skills counseling to at-risk youths. During our visits to selected Weed and Seed sites, we observed many different types of activities. These activities ranged from community police substations or ministations to court-ordered community service for youths. Appendix III describes our site visits and illustrates the many types of activities funded at these sites. Good internal controls are essential to achieving full accountability for the resources made available for the Weed and Seed Program. However, EOWS lacks an adequate internal control that requires that the basis and rationale for new and existing Weed and Seed site qualification for funding decisions always be fully documented. In addition, EOWS has not always ensured, through its grant monitoring process, that site progress reports— a grant requirement—were submitted or that grant monitors documented their site visits. Through our survey and site visits, we identified some leveraging efforts made by Weed and Seed sites. Many of these efforts appeared to be leading toward the self-sustainment of some Weed and Seed sites. However, while the objective of sites’ becoming self-sustaining is a critical program goal, EOWS had yet to establish criteria for determining when sites should be classified as self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw funding. Although current performance measures address a variety of activities taking place at Weed and Seed sites, these measures generally are not adequate to judge program success. While EOWS has made some changes to the way that it measures program effectiveness, these indicators still generally track activities, not program outcomes. We recognize that it is difficult to precisely measure the results of this type of community-based program or strategy. However, better performance indicators as well as other indicators, such as compliance with grant requirements, would help EOWS make more informed program decisions, such as whether to continue funding existing sites. We recommend that the Attorney General of the United States direct the Director of the Executive Office of Weed and Seed to develop an adequate internal control to ensure that the basis and rationale for new and existing site qualification for funding decisions are always fully documented; improve program monitoring to ensure that sites meet the grant requirement of submitting progress reports, and that EOWS site visits are documented; develop criteria for determining when sites are self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw program funding; and develop additional performance measures that track program outcomes. DOJ generally agreed with most of the recommendations presented in the report and offered additional information to explain the status of the current situation, as well as additional actions it plans to take. DOJ also provided technical comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. DOJ agreed with our recommendation for an adequate internal control to ensure that the basis and rationale for new and existing site qualification decisions are always fully documented. They provided some additional information on the internal controls for OJP’s formal grant award processes. For example, they described processes currently in place to ensure that grants are awarded in accordance with Office of Management and Budget and OJP policies. While this information provided a framework for OJP financial controls, it did not specifically relate to our recommendation. Our internal control review focused on EOWS’ decisions for qualifying new and existing sites for funding. DOJ agreed with our recommendation to improve program monitoring, citing that it has a chronic problem of grantees not submitting programmatic progress reports in a timely manner. To address this problem, EOWS is proposing to suspend funding for grantees failing to submit progress reports in a timely manner. Because this new proposal has yet to be implemented by EOWS, we believe our recommendation to ensure that sites meet the grant requirement of submitting timely progress reports is appropriate. In addition, EOWS acknowledged the need to document all monitoring visits. After they received our draft report, they told us they had taken corrective action, and all monitoring reports are now up to date. However, there is no assurance that a process and procedures are in place to ensure that monitoring visits will always be documented, and we continue to believe that our recommendation is needed. DOJ disagreed with our recommendation on self-sustainability, stating that developing criteria is problematic. They also commented that the draft report was incorrect in stating that no site’s funding had been reduced or withdrawn as a result of the site’s efforts to become self-sustaining, and that we used the terms “site” and “grantee” incorrectly. DOJ maintains that, as one neighborhood reached a point where it could sustain its Weed and Seed crime-reduction efforts, funds and resources were shifted by the grantee to other neighborhoods. With respect to self-sustainability, there is a distinction to be drawn between DOJ’s comments and evidence we gathered from interviews with program officials and our own observations. We acknowledge that some grantee funds and resources have been shifted to other neighborhoods within the grantee’s location. However, it is not clear whether this occurred because the programs became less reliant on Weed and Seed grants or for other reasons. EOWS management and local program officials told us that funding had been reduced at some sites to fund activities in other neighborhoods, but not because the site demonstrated that it successfully reached self-sustainability. Our limited site visits confirmed this at the locations we selected for review. In an attempt to create criteria for achieving self-sustainability, EOWS adopted a 5-year rule under which it can discontinue qualifying sites for continued program funding unless the sites expand to an additional neighborhood site. EOWS expressed the opinion that this rule has created an expectation of self-sustainability for current sites, since some funds are to be shifted from the current neighborhood site to the expansion site. We continue to believe that EOWS needs to develop better criteria for determining when sites become self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw program funding. Under EOWS’ current 5-year rule, even if some resources are shifted to an expansion site, there still may be substantial Weed and Seed investment at the original site and EOWS would have no way of knowing whether the original site is self-sustaining. Withdrawing funding after 5 years of federal investment without criteria could be arbitrary. Some sites may become self-sustaining sooner than 5 years—resulting in a missed opportunity to fund other Weed and Seed sites—while other sites may need more than 5 years to achieve self- sustainability. While it may be challenging to develop criteria for determining when a site becomes self-sustaining, we believe EOWS should work toward this goal since it is a central and fundamental tenet of the Weed and Seed Program. With respect to the distinction between sites and grantees mentioned in EOWS’ comments, we have modified the report to clarify when we are referring to a grantee or a site. DOJ officials agreed with our recommendation to develop performance measures that track program outcomes. However, they noted that EOWS already has one performance measure in place—homicides—that it uses to track program outcomes. Consequently, they believed that our recommendation should be modified to state that EOWS should develop and use additional performance measures. We recognize that EOWS has adopted this outcome-oriented performance measure and have modified our recommendation to require EOWS to develop additional measures. DOJ also expressed concern that we did not include the results of a recently completed national evaluation of the Weed and Seed Program by Abt Associates Inc. As noted in Abt’s report, this evaluation involved case studies of eight Weed and Seed sites. Among other activities, each case study included two principal sources of empirical data, as follows: (1) analysis of crime trends at each site and (2) surveys of site residents, one conducted in 1995 and the other in 1997. Overall, the report indicated mixed results across the sites—there were significant favorable effects in key outcome measures for some cities and some time periods, while the results on outcome measures in other cities were not as favorable. The report noted that the evidence is modest in terms of statistical significance. Finally, DOJ stated that our report did not provide adequate insight into the findings of our site visits and mail surveys. However, in our results in brief section, we note the satisfaction that most local officials we spoke with had with the activities funded by Weed and Seed. These results are discussed in greater detail in the body of this report. Our survey results, in their entirety, are included as appendix II. In addition, the details of each of our five site visits are included in appendix III. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Strom Thurmond, Chairman, and the Honorable Charles Schumer, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight. We are also sending copies of this report to the Honorable Harold Rogers, Chairman, and the Honorable Jos E. Serrano, Ranking Minority Member, House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies; the Honorable Bill McCollum, Chairman, and the Honorable Robert C. Scott, Ranking Minority Member, House Subcommittee on Crime; and the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General. We will make copies available to others upon request. The major contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix V. If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777. Atlanta, GA, has been a Weed and Seed site since 1992. Atlanta’s target area includes two public housing developments, Thomasville Heights and Capitol Homes; their immediate surrounding areas; and a third community, Mechanicsville. In fiscal year 1998, the total population of the two public housing communities was 2,150, mainly African-American females with a median age of 23 to 28 years. Ten percent of the total population was on felony probation, and an additional 150 adults were under parole supervision. Mechanicsville was characterized as single-family homes surrounding a public housing community. Atlanta’s Weed and Seed goals include to (1) reduce drug sales, drug trafficking activities, and drug-related violent crimes; (2) develop conflict resolution and prevention resources to reduce the incidence of violence in target communities; (3) provide creative options for young people to allow them alternatives to drinking and using drugs; (4) increase public safety awareness through antivictimization techniques; and (5) strengthen relationships with the communities to increase the number of reported crimes and assist in developing intelligence information for undercover use. This project site is initiating a multiagency program to coordinate the delivery of criminal justice and social services to eliminate violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug-related crime and to provide a safe environment for law-abiding citizens to live, work, and raise a family. Since fiscal year 1992, the Atlanta Weed and Seed program has been awarded about $3.7 million comprised of grant and asset forfeiture funds. As of December 31, 1998, the Atlanta Weed and Seed program had used about $3 million. Grant awards ranged from a high of about $754,000 in fiscal year 1993 to a low of $175,000 in fiscal year 1998. Asset forfeiture funds were awarded in 5 years and ranged from a high of about $268,000 in fiscal year 1994 to a low of about $51,000 in fiscal year 1997. See table III.1 for the funding history of the Atlanta Weed and Seed site. Table III.1: Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Award is pending. Atlanta’s weed effort includes the following five-phase approach to reaching program goals: (1) community policing as an overall philosophy and as an institution; (2) intelligence collection and database preparation; (3) investigation; (4) arrests, seizures, and custody; and (5) incarceration and prosecution. The seed effort seeks to develop multiagency community participation in substance abuse prevention and intervention activities. See table III.2 for examples of the types of activities funded by the Atlanta Weed and Seed program, listed by program element. U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of the Navy (USN) Spring Break— Together Everyone Achieves More (TEAM) Description This joint operation targets street level dealers, gang members, and sources of supply to disrupt and dismantle drug and violent crime gangs preying on target communities by using intelligence and criminal information from sources within and outside the community. In addition, the Weed task force is to refer cases involving weapons to the U.S. Attorney’s office for consideration of federal prosecution. DEFY is a mentoring program adopted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for Weed and Seed in 1996. DEFY is to be a comprehensive program that emphasizes the positive development of the mind, body, and spirit. The Weed Task force sponsored the first annual Spring Break TEAM building camp. Students from the target site spent 2 intensive days with sports figures, HUD/OIG agents, law enforcement officers, and conflict resolution advocates. The Ballethnic dance outreach program offers prevention through the arts to students in the elementary and middle schools. Viewpoint, Inc. Viewpoint, Inc., provides family/community prevention workshops to the target areas. A residential treatment component is offered to 20 residents with 3 months of aftercare as an integral part of the recovery process. The three communities completed a 12-week curriculum of Teens, Crime, and Community that was conducted by Americorp students under the guidance of the Victim Witness Assistance Program. Youths then select community projects. For example, Mechanicsville youths identified the UJAMAA Cookie Corporation as their project and have purchased equipment necessary for their business operation. Atlanta’s Weed and Seed program officials stated that an important goal for their program is to leverage additional resources from non-Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) sources to become self-sustaining. During the course of our site visit, we identified several partnerships established by the Atlanta Weed and Seed program to leverage additional resources. These cooperative arrangements involved partners such as the United States Navy and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Table III.3 illustrates examples of leveraging efforts that were identified through our survey and site visit. Table III.3: Examples of Atlanta Weed and Seed Site’s Leveraging Efforts Type of partnership/cooperative arrangementFederal government Name of partner/cooperative arrangement USN Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) Fulton County Sheriff’s Department Viewpoint, Inc. Pyramid Communications Systems, Inc. Description USN is to host the DEFY Summer Camp—a youth outreach program intended to promote positive life choices in 9-12 year olds through use of role models and education. HUD/OIG agents work with the Weed task force to investigate crimes occurring in and around public housing developments and assist in the prosecution of individuals involved in criminal activity. Agents assist with the execution of warrants involving residents of public housing. GBI provides Drug Awareness and Resistance Education (DARE) instructor training to Atlanta police officers and other law enforcement officers who are dedicated to the Atlanta Weed and Seed Project. In addition, it provides manpower support to the Atlanta Weed Task Force and share intelligence relating to criminal activities in or affecting the Weed and Seed neighborhoods. Deputy sheriffs provide junior deputy training in Weed and Seed neighborhoods as well as at the Safe Haven Summer Program. In addition, Fulton County deputies conduct TEAM building camp during public school spring break. Viewpoint conducts community/family education and prevention workshops for the three Weed and Seed communities. In addition, Viewpoint is to provide a maximum of 20 slots for Weed and Seed residents identified as needing residential treatment at their residential care facilities. Pyramid Communication Systems (in partnership with Atlanta University’s Economic Development Center) assists in the development and implementation of business plans for the cookie collaborative in Mechanicsville, the concession store for Capitol Homes, and the employment placement firm in Thomasville Heights. SITE’S PERFORMANCE MEASURES To date, Atlanta has not developed site-specific indicators to measure the results of its program. However, officials said that under the leadership of the Mayor’s office, they have developed a detailed weeding strategy that sets forth overall goals and roles of the community, law enforcement, and prosecution and have detailed innovative ideas for consideration. Specific measures of success to be linked to these goals are under consideration. According to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, a seeding strategy has not yet been developed. Dyersburg, TN, a small rural community in northwest Tennessee with a population of about 23,000, was officially recognized as a Weed and Seed site in February 1996 and received its first year grant award in September 1996 (see table III.4). When the program began, two target neighborhoods were involved; now the site has expanded into four target neighborhoods. The steering committee used the following criteria to select target neighborhoods: (1) an increase in drug trafficking and potential for street gang activity, (2) an increase in crime statistics indicating violence, (3) juvenile crime rates, (4) a lack of adequate employment opportunities, (5) truancy and school drop-out rates, and (6) the potential for residents’ involvement in and commitment to the program. Since fiscal year 1996, the Dyersburg Weed and Seed program was awarded about $734,000, comprising grant and asset forfeiture fund awards. As of December 31, 1998, the Dyersburg Weed and Seed program had used about $563,000. Grant awards ranged from a high of $275,000 in fiscal year 1998 to a low of about $129,000 in fiscal year 1996. The Dyersburg Weed and Seed program received one asset forfeiture fund award in fiscal year 1996 of about $103,000. See table III.4 for the funding history of the Dyersburg Weed and Seed site. Table III.4: Dyersburg Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1996-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Award is pending. Dyersburg provides a variety of Weed and Seed activities for children, youth, and adults at its safe haven, which is coordinated through the Dyersburg City Community Resource Center. Table III.5 shows examples of the types of activities funded by the Dyersburg Weed and Seed program, listed by program element. Description System to link the communications systems of Dyer County law enforcement, fire, and ambulance systems. Expedite juvenile offenders court adjudication. Site reported that by quicker adjudication it noted a substantial decrease in the number of juvenile cases. Academy to familiarize its citizens with the police department, its personnel, its goals, and the way it operates. Day camp for children, including breakfast and lunch, organized games, arts, songs, and character development. This safe haven developed a complementary after- school program designed to assist parents, churches, and public schools in enhancing the quality of life for children. Community summit to design and implement an economic development strategy and prepare for new economic opportunities. Dyersburg Weed and Seed program officials told us an important goal for their program is to leverage additional resources from non-EOWS sources to become self-sustaining. During the course of our site visit, we identified several partnerships established by the Dyersburg Weed and Seed program to leverage additional resources. These cooperative arrangements involved partners such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and local Dyersburg businesses. Table III.6 illustrates examples of leveraging efforts that were identified through our survey and site visit. Description Site reported that participation with these agencies has enabled more law enforcement coverage with its small police force and resulted in prosecutions and convictions of over 25 major drug dealers in northwest Tennessee. Also was a partner in above investigations. Provides a staff member at no cost to help run safe haven program. Provides a staff member at no cost to administer the Weed and Seed program. Doubled size of bike patrol—now has a two-person bike patrol team in all four Weed and Seed target areas. Residents rented a house to the City of Dyersburg for 10 years at 1 dollar per year plus property tax. House is to be used as a mini- police precinct in target area. Provide in-kind donations of food and other supplies to various Weed and Seed functions, such as picnics and barbecues. SITE’S PERFORMANCE MEASURES Dyersburg does not use site-specific indicators to measure the results of its program. However, in response to our survey, the site coordinator reported that the site used a variety of methods to measure program success, and that evaluation was a regular and ongoing part of the program. First, the local steering committee met monthly to review and the program. Second, the police chief reviewed the program and offered regular input. Third, the site coordinator and safe haven coordinator regularly reviewed activities funded or assisted by the Weed and Seed program to ensure that they were meeting program requirements. While these methods might prove useful to local officials, they do not measure outcomes or results. Philadelphia, PA, was officially recognized as one of the original Weed and Seed sites in 1992. The Philadelphia target area is bounded on the east by Front Street, on the west by Fifth Street, on the north by Westmoreland Street, and on the south by Berks Street. In addition, the target area encompasses the Philadelphia 25th and 26th police districts. The target area has a higher proportion of the population under 18 than any other area of Philadelphia. The most prevalent illegal drugs of choice have been cocaine and heroin, and the continued focus of the Weed and Seed initiative is toward both major traffickers of illegal drugs as well as those engaged in street sales. The continuing goal of this site is to revitalize the neighborhood and provide the opportunity for the residents in the community to live, work, and raise children in a safe and clean environment. Objectives for this site are to (1) control violent and drug-related crime; (2) enhance public safety and security by mobilizing neighborhood residents; (3) create a healthy and supportive environment by preventing and combating crime, drug use, unemployment, illiteracy, and disease; and (4) revitalize the neighborhood. Since fiscal year 1992, the Philadelphia Weed and Seed program has been awarded about $4 million for the program comprising grant and asset forfeiture fund awards. As of December 31, 1998, the Philadelphia Weed and Seed program had used about $3.6 million. Grant awards ranged from a high of about $1.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to a low of about $177,000 in fiscal year 1997. Asset forfeiture funds were awarded in 5 years and ranged from a high of about $288,000 in fiscal year 1994 to a low of about $103,000 in fiscal year 1996. See table III.7 for the funding history of the Philadelphia Weed and Seed site. Table III.7: Philadelphia Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1992-99 (1998 Constant Dollars) Award is pending. Philadelphia’s Weed and Seed site activities are focused on strategies to assist children and youths in becoming productive and law-abiding citizens; free them from drug and alcohol abuse; establish safe haven multiservice education centers (four are currently operating) in drug- and crime-free environments; continue Community Resource Centers that provide an array of social services; and conduct pr provide antidrug marches/vigils, neighborhood clean-ups, employment training, community organizing, youth programs, volunteer recruitment, and information and referral. Table III.8 shows examples of activities funded by the Philadelphia Weed and Seed site, listed by program element. Description These organizations are to conduct collaborative investigations among law enforcement agencies. In addition, community residents provide information to the police mobile units as well as provide anonymous information to officers. These organizations participate in and support antidrug marches. These groups provide training and workshops relating to drug and alcohol treatment and prevention. Residents become involved by taking part in the workshops and training provided and accepting referrals for drug rehabilitation programs. Schools, Shalom, Safe Havens, AmeriCorps, DARE programs, etc. Prevention specialists teach conflict resolution in schools. Residents become involved by participating in the programs offered in the schools for their youths and volunteering in the community and safe havens. The goal of this activity is to motivate parents, youths, schools, and businesses to work together toward a clean and viable community. Youth volunteer to participate to take part in area clean ups and attend community service projects to earn community service hours, and residents clean area in front of homes. Philadelphia’s Weed and Seed Program officials told us an important goal for their program is to leverage additional resources from non-EOWS sources to become self-sustaining. During the course of our site visit, we identified several partnerships established by the Philadelphia Weed and Seed program to leverage additional resources. These cooperative arrangements involved partners, such as the Pennsylvania Army National Guard and Villanova University. Table III.9 illustrates examples of leveraging efforts that were identified through our survey and site visit. Description DOJ’s HIDTA assesses the extent of and change in the demographics of drug-using offenders and is to create an integrated and collaborative intelligence center to focus on narcotics trade in the area. This partner provides conflict resolution training, camping trips, and demand reduction programs and assists in coordinating the DEFY program. These organizations provide food, drinks, and snacks to safe havens and after-school programs at no cost. Universities provide volunteers to assist with safe haven activities and other projects, such as smoke detector installations and clean ups. The department provides police officers to patrol the Weed and Seed area on bikes, conduct special investigations, train block captains, etc. SITE’S PERFORMANCE MEASURES In response to our survey, the site coordinator reported that this site uses a variety of methods to measure success in achieving its Weed and Seed program goals and objectives. Methods cited include (1) conducting pretests and posttests for various programs implemented, (2) using sign-in sheets for various activities to monitor trends in community involvement, (3) conducting youth and parent surveys, and (4) using various police statistics to measure the success of operations. In addition, Temple University completed an evaluation of the Philadelphia Weed and Seed project in the fall of 1997, reporting the program’s impact in the community between 1992 and 1997. Since the completion of this evaluation, it has been shared with the Attorney General of the United States and discussed with city officials as well as discussed at Weed and Seed Steering Committee meetings. According to Philadelphia Weed and Seed site officials, they have begun to take action as a result of this evaluation. For example, the Weed and Seed site hosted an 1-day “Getting Back to the Strategy” session in March 1998. The purpose of this session was to bring representatives from all Weed and Seed components together as a group to make the Weed and Seed target area a clean and safe place to live and raise children. San Diego, CA, was officially recognized as a Weed and Seed site in 1992. The Weed and Seed target area in San Diego includes three of the six neighborhoods that comprise the central sector of the southeast San Diego area. San Diego's target area has a total population of 22,137 (8,494 youths 17 years or younger; 13,643 adults 18 years and older). The total number of households is about 5,000, and the ethnic composition is approximately 54 percent African American, 33 percent Latino, and 13 percent other. The median family income is $18,062, and about 39 percent of the total population is below poverty level. During our visit to the San Diego Weed and Seed site, we and the EOWS program monitor who accompanied us identified a number of problems affecting the site’s successful implementation of the Weed and Seed program. One of the problems we identified was the lack of direct U.S. Attorney and resident involvement in the steering committee. EOWS requires that the U.S. Attorney be involved with the steering committee and that residents be actively involved. On the basis of our observations during our site visit and the report from the EOWS program monitor, it appeared that the residents in the target area and the city agencies in the community did not always agree on how the Weed and Seed program should be implemented in San Diego. The site coordinator told us there was a lack of communication among the U.S. Attorney’s office, the Mayor’s office, and community residents on how Weed and Seed funds should be allocated and what activities and services should be provided to the target area. During the course of our review, EOWS decided not to qualify San Diego for fiscal year 1999 funding on the basis of the above observations and their own analysis of the San Diego Weed and Seed site. As a result, the San Diego City officials and the U.S. Attorney’s office have renewed their commitment to the San Diego Weed and Seed site. They agreed to work together to restructure the existing Executive Steering Committee and provide the site with improved direction to ensure its future success in implementing the Weed and Seed program in San Diego. Since fiscal year 1992, the San Diego Weed and Seed program has been awarded about $3.5 million for the program comprised of grant and asset forfeiture funds. As of December 31, 1998, the San Diego Weed and Seed program had used about $2.9 million. Grant awards ranged from a high of about $691,000 in fiscal year 1992 to a low of about $51,000 in fiscal year 1997. Asset forfeiture funds were awarded in 3 years and ranged from a high of about $268,000 in fiscal year 1994 to a low of about $103,000 fiscal year 1996. See table III.10 for the funding history of the San Diego Weed and Seed site. Table III.10: San Diego Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1992-98 (1998 Constant Dollars) San Diego provides a variety of Weed and Seed activities, such as Neighborhood Policing Teams, which conduct bike and foot patrols of the community, and a safe haven, which teaches children about computers. Table III.11 shows other examples of the types of activities funded by the San Diego Weed and Seed program, listed by program element. Description The San Diego Police Department coordinates and works with the task forces to arrest and adjudicate violent criminal offenders for activities such as gang involvement, drug trafficking, and car theft in the Weed and Seed target area. Partner(s) San Diego Police Department, INS, ATF, FBI, DEA, California Department of Corrections, San Diego District Attorney, San Diego County Probation, and San Diego City Attorney San Diego Police Department Children’s/Youth Choir, Inc. The NPT works with local residents to address community concerns, including drug and gang activity, public intoxication, code compliance, properties in need of boarding, securing, and other nuisance and crime-related activities. The NPT uses foot and bike patrols and substations as a means of monitoring the target area. A course for children in grades 6-12 designed to teach them about the different parts and functions of computers. Children learn how to assemble and operate a computer, including installing and using software. A course for children ages 9-13 designed to provide them with art instruction, such as basic drawing techniques, and develop art work to be displayed at a “Community Pride Day” in the Weed and Seed target area. A community pride event intended to bring target area residents together in a celebration of diversity, unity, and community pride. An example of an event is to hold a festival at one of the target area parks providing entertainment, food, fun and games, music, and other types of entertainment. An important stated goal for San Diego’s Weed and Seed program is to leverage additional resources from non-EOWS sources to become self- sustaining. During the course of our site visit, we identified several partnerships established by the San Diego Weed and Seed program to leverage additional resources. These cooperative arrangements involved partners such as the San Diego Police Department and the San Diego public schools. Table III.12 illustrates examples of leveraging efforts that were identified through our survey and site visit. Description The San Diego Police Department coordinates as well as participates in task force operations not funded by the Weed and Seed Program. A variety of programs (computer assembly course, arts and culture class, etc.) and services (youth mentoring, job assistance) are offered through partnerships with a number of agencies at cost or below market cost to the Weed and Seed program. The police department deploys paid staff, volunteers, and patrol officers to the target area. The city provides a satellite office, for use by the police department, dedicated to the Weed and Seed target area. The San Diego City Parks and Recreation service offers a rent- free facility to the Weed and Seed program for use as a safe haven. In addition, the city offers other administrative services with minimal overhead costs. Facilities are provided rent-free for a number of Weed and Seed activities. SITE’S PERFORMANCE MEASURES In response to our survey, the Weed and Seed site coordinator reported that Weed and Seed efforts in the San Diego target area were evaluated through a number of different methods. Evaluations of weeding efforts included (1) performing a comparative analysis of crime statistics compiled for the target area; (2) tracking police actions established by residents, community organizations, and businesses; and (3) maintaining statistics on community contacts made and events attended by police officers. For the seeding efforts, these methods included (1) requiring monthly activity reports and conducting periodic site visits of all Weed and Seed programs in the target area; (2) checking programs’ compliance with the contracted scope(s) of services, which are to be based on Weed and Seed programs’ goals and objectives; (3) tracking the number of participants in the programs; (4) evaluating the quality and/or duration of services provided to participants; and (5) evaluating program participant service outcomes and their evaluations of the programs. While these measures might be useful in better understanding the activities funded by the San Diego Weed and Seed program, they primarily measure the level of activities, not program results. Further, while the analysis of crime statistics appears to be more outcome oriented, it is difficult to determine a direct link between a reduction in crime rates and Weed and Seed activities. Woburn, MA, has been officially recognized as a Weed and Seed site since 1996. The target area is made up of the downtown area of Woburn and was selected due to the high crime rate and drug sales and the high rate of public housing developments and publicly assisted housing. During the course of our review, EOWS decided not to qualify Woburn for fiscal year 1999 funding. According to EOWS, Woburn had not submitted the required quarterly financial reports and semiannual progress reports that are required by its grant award. However, Woburn would be eligible to be qualified for grant funds in fiscal year 2000 as long as the requirements of its previous awards are met. The Woburn Weed and Seed program was awarded about $305,000 in grant fund awards for the program for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The awards were about $177,000 in fiscal year 1997 and about $129,000 in fiscal year 1996. As of December 31, 1998, the Woburn Weed and Seed program had used about $213,000. The Woburn Weed and Seed site was awarded $50,000 in asset forfeiture funds in fiscal year 1996. However, in fiscal year 1999, EOWS deobligated these funds since the Woburn Weed and Seed site was unable to use these funds for a law enforcement operation. See table III.13 for funding history of the Woburn Weed and Seed site. Table III.13: Woburn Weed and Seed Site’s Funding History—FY 1996-98 (1998 Constant Dollars) The Woburn Weed and Seed site was awarded $50,000 in asset forfeiture funds. However, in fiscal year 1999, EOWS deobligated these funds since the Woburn Weed and Seed site was unable to use these funds for a law enforcement operation. Woburn provides a variety of Weed and Seed activities, such as a safe haven, which includes helping children with homework assignments, and a Job Links career enhancement program, which provides job readiness training for adults. Table III.14 shows other examples of the types of activities funded by the Woburn Weed and Seed program, listed by program element. Description A coordinated operation conducted by the Woburn Police Department, NEMLEC, and DEA. Funds are to be used for police overtime. A partnership between community police officers and residents to reduce crime and fear of crime through enforcement and community problem solving, using problem-oriented policing and empowering residents to create a safe neighborhood for themselves. Funds are to be used for police overtime. After-school educational/recreational program run in the housing developments for children ages 5-10. Focus is on developing reading and social interaction skills and alcohol/drug/safety education. Assists youths with homework assignments, classroom difficulties, and problems associated with language barriers. Other components include drama, art, and language clubs and English as a Second Language program for parents. Assists community professionals and community police officers in tracking high-risk youths ages 12-17. Youth tracker also tracks youth crime, truancy, and youths in need of assistance and support. Provides résumé writing, career counseling, interview skills, and job readiness training for adults. An important stated goal for Woburn’s Weed and Seed program is to leverage additional resources from non-EOWS sources to become self- sustaining. During the course of our site visit, we identified several partnerships established by the Woburn Weed and Seed program to leverage additional resources. These cooperative arrangements involved partners such as the Woburn Housing Authority and the Boys and Girls Club. Table III.15 illustrates examples of leveraging efforts identified through our survey and site visit. Description Cooperative work arrangement with the state to conduct an evaluation of Woburn’s Weed and Seed site. Using state funds, the city hired a substance abuse counselor to act as the liaison for drug prevention efforts between the city and other entities. This position was created as a direct result of Weed and Seed efforts. Provides assistance in administering the Weed and Seed grant and provides space for a variety of Weed and Seed activities. Provides space to house Weed and Seed programs and allows their vehicles to be used for Weed and Seed activities at no charge. Provide staff and facilities for Weed and Seed-sponsored activities. SITE’S PERFORMANCE MEASURES In response to our survey and our site visit, the Weed and Seed site coordinator reported that the Weed and Seed efforts in the Woburn target area were evaluated through a number of different methods. The indicators used to measure the success of law enforcement efforts included tracking (1) the number and types of crime within the target area, (2) the number of drug arrests, and (3) the number of drug cases that have been started in the target area. For the community-policing element, the indicators used included monitoring the information flow between Community Oriented Police officers and narcotics officers. For the prevention, intervention, and treatment element, the indicators used included tracking the attendance and observing the activities at the various Weed and Seed programs. As for the neighborhood revitalization element, the indicators used included tracking the number of jobs that were found by participants in the Weed and Seed program and calculating the increased economic activity within the target area as a result of the Weed and Seed effort. While these measures might be useful in better understanding the activities funded by the Woburn Weed and Seed program, they primarily measure the level of activities, not program results. Further, while the analysis of crime statistics and tracking the number of jobs found by Weed and Seed program participants appear to be more outcome oriented, it is difficult to determine a direct link between these indicators Weed and Seed activities. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Justice letter dated July 1, 1999. 1. DOJ suggested that (1) our report title should be changed to reflect our mandate to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Weed and Seed Program and (2) some of our report captions should be modified. We believe our report title and captions better convey the message of our report, therefore, we made no modifications. 2. DOJ stated that the Grant Manager’s Memoranda outline the basis and rationale for funding decisions. Our review of the Grant Manager’s Memoranda showed that they did not provide a basis and rationale for funding decisions but rather provided a project overview, including purpose, goals and objectives, strategy, and project management. Further, EOWS management officials told us the narrative on this form is the same for all grantees; therefore, we do not believe these memoranda communicate the basis and rationale for qualifying new and existing sites for funding. 3. DOJ stated that we are suggesting that it routinely perform impact assessments of program components. We are not suggesting that EOWS routinely perform impact assessments. Our statement is meant as an example of a possible outcome measure. 4. DOJ stated that our report did not appropriately highlight positive program results. However, in the results in brief section we note that selected sites had taken actions toward self-sustainment as well as highlight the satisfaction that most local officials had with the activities funded by Weed and Seed. These results are discussed in greater detail in the body of this report. In addition, our survey results, in their entirety, are included in appendix II of the report. 5. DOJ requested that the final report be revised to reflect the controls that for years have been in place to document program management and funding decisions. We did not make this change for the reasons discussed in the agency comments section of this report. Michelle A. Sager The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the effectiveness of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Weed and Seed Program, focusing on how: (1) the program is managed by DOJ's Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS); (2) EOWS monitors local Weed and Seed sites to ensure that grant requirements are met; (3) EOWS determines when sites have become self-sustaining; and (4) EOWS and selected sites are measuring program results. GAO noted that: (1) EOWS has not established an adequate internal control requiring that significant program management decisions be documented; (2) without this control, EOWS management has not always fully documented EOWS decisions; (3) for example, in reviewing 12 of the 70 fiscal year (FY) 1999 new site qualification funding decisions, GAO found that for 5 of these 12 decisions, documentation was insufficient for GAO to determine how inconsistencies among external consultants and grant monitor recommendations and EOWS management decisions were reconciled; (4) in FY 1999, EOWS made decisions to qualify 164 of the existing 177 sites for continued funding, although in some cases, EOWS grant monitors recommended against additional funding; (5) however, available documentation was insufficient for GAO to determine the basis and rationale for EOWS' deciding to qualify these sites for continued funding; (6) for the remaining 13 sites that EOWS decided not to qualify for continued funding, documentation was sufficient to determine the basis and rationale for these decisions; (7) EOWS also did not always ensure that local Weed and Seed sites met critical grant requirements; (8) progress reports are an important tool to help EOWS management and grant monitors determine how sites are meeting program objectives and to assist in making future grant qualification decisions; (9) EOWS has not developed criteria to determine when sites have become self-sustaining and when to reduce or withdraw Weed and Seed funds, even though the goal of sites' becoming self-sustaining is central to the program; (10) while GAO identified actions that selected sites had taken toward self-sustainment, at the time of GAO's review, no site's funding had been reduced or withdrawn as a result of its efforts to become self-sustaining during the 9 years of the program's existence; (11) EOWS' performance indicators generally did not measure program results; (12) while GAO's review was in progress, EOWS changed some of its performance indicators in an attempt to better measure how well sites were meeting program objectives; (13) however, the revised indicators still primarily tracked program activity rather than results; (14) despite the general lack of performance indicators, most local officials with whom GAO spoke commented favorably on the activities funded by the local Weed and Seed sites; and (15) they believed that a key ingredient to the Weed and Seed Program's success was the commitment of the mayors' and U.S. Attorneys' offices and civic and business leaders.