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. For fiscal year 1999, EOWS management officials decided for the first time not to qualify for funding all existing sites that met grant requirements. 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. EOWS Did Not Ensure That Weed and Seed Sites Met Grant Requirements

EOWS did not always ensure that local Weed and Seed sites complied with critical grant requirements. 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. EOWS Has Not Determined When Sites Become Self- Sustaining

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. EOWS and Weed and Seed Sites’ Performance Indicators Generally Did Not Measure Program Success

EOWS has developed various performance indicators, in an attempt to respond to GPRA. However, these indicators still generally measure activities rather than results. Local Participants Reported Satisfaction With the Programs

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. Recommendations

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. Our internal control review focused on EOWS’ decisions for qualifying new and existing sites for funding. 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. DEFY is a mentoring program adopted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for Weed and Seed in 1996. GAO Comments

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.