In our 1999 report, we made four recommendations to help EOWS  improve program monitoring and management. We found that EOWS lacked internal controls requiring  significant program management decisions be documented. Our third recommendation  was to develop criteria for determining when sites have become self- sustaining 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 We found  that although self-sustainability is central to the program, no site’s funding  had been reduced or withdrawn as a result of its efforts to become self- sustaining in the 9 years of the program’s existence. 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. Internal Controls Have Been Developed, but Challenges Remain

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. 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. 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. At the time of our review, no site’s funding had been  reduced or withdrawn because the site had achieved self-sustainability,  even though EOWS has funded some sites since the early 1990s. 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. Recommendations for Executive Action

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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.