From July 1997 through June 2000, state grant funds were provided for three years through the Virginia Weed and Seed Initiative to focus state and local resources on reducing crime and improving the quality of life in selected localities. Weed and Seed funds supported intensive law enforcement efforts in high-crime neighborhoods to "weed out" crime, which were followed by concentrated human services efforts to "seed" the community for lasting positive change. The 1998 Budget Bill directed the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to evaluate the existing Weed and Seed programs.

This evaluation report documents the implementation of Weed and Seed in four sites: Lynchburg, Norfolk, Petersburg, and Winchester. Each target site is located in an inner-city area and has a recent history of community deterioration and disproportionate crime problems. Descriptive and process information about each program site and its grant-funded activities were obtained through site visits and reviews of Weed and Seed grant documents. In addition, crime statistics for the third year of the program were gathered from local law enforcement agencies.

The designs of the local Weed and Seed programs varied widely across the four sites because program characteristics in the target communities have been influenced by locally-identified needs and existing community services. Despite these differences, each site has attempted to reduce crime through a number of intensive enforcement strategies. These Weed activities include increased police patrols and the promotion of police-resident relationships through community-oriented policing techniques.

Additionally, each locality engaged in Seed activities which focused on providing human services and developing community mobilization and involvement. Most localities increased services for target area youth with the cooperation of existing providers. Adults also received limited services in most sites. Community mobilization was encouraged through involvement in new and existing community organizations and associations. In an effort to revitalize and increase compliance in target area neighborhoods, code enforcement activities also increased.

The evaluation also attempted to assess the impact of the programs on local crime rates. The Budget Bill language directing this evaluation specifically stated that the study should examine longitudinal effects of the programs on overall crime rates in the target areas. The ability to make assessments was particularly compromised by the ongoing transition from the UCR (Uniform Crime Reports) to IBR (Incident-Based Reporting) crime reporting systems. Because variations in numbers of reported offense and arrests may be due to UCR / IBR transition issues rather than actual program effects in the target areas, comparisons across time are not presented in this report.

Although it has not been feasible to thoroughly assess the impact of Weed and Seed, preliminary evidence suggests that the program shows potential as a way to focus coordinated community efforts against crime. Local Weed and Seed coordinators indicated that they are encouraged by the program, and every Weed and Seed site has plans to continue the program, at least in part. However, each locality has experienced challenges with struggling components throughout the project, specifically those that require high community involvement and strong leadership.

Because the state’s financial support of the program has terminated, the evaluators have developed specific recommendations to guide future development of Weed and Seed programs at the local level. These recommendations address the following issues:

• Improving resident "buy-in" and support of Weed and Seed activities,
• Enhancing the role of the prosecutor in the Weed component,
• Improving needs assessment techniques when planning Seed activities,
• Facilitating strong leadership and interagency cooperation,
• Increasing private sector involvement, and
• Creating program coordinator positions for each local program.

Specific information which explains and supports each recommendation is located in the complete report. In addition, a general discussion of planning issues and strategies is presented to guide state program administrators who initiate complex community-based programming projects like Weed and Seed in the future.

Continue on to Chapter 2 or
Return to the Table of Contents.