Implementation of the Virginia Weed and Seed Initiative has clearly taken a unique form in each evaluation site, and each locality has faced unique challenges in implementing the program at the local level. However, little information is currently available to determine the impact of local Weed and Seed program components. This section summarizes the evaluation findings and provides recommendations for future program development.

Discussion of Program Findings

By reviewing the broad program goals specified in the Weed and Seed grant guidelines, both common and unique aspects of local Weed and Seed programming emerge.

Goal 1

To develop a comprehensive, multi-agency strategy to eliminate violent crime, drug trafficking and drug-related crime from targeted high-crime neighborhoods.

With respect to Goal 1, each site has clearly attempted to implement a strategy to reduce crime in the target neighborhoods over the three-year funding cycle. Crime elimination activities have included an increased police presence in each target area and efforts to enhance community involvement with the police department. Each site implemented the Suppression Strategy by increased enforcement, investigations, and surveillance. All sites emphasized reduction of drug trafficking and drug-related offenses, and obtained assistance from existing local resources, such as drug task forces and the Virginia State Police. In fact, an examination of the most common arrest types across target areas suggested that drug / narcotic violations and simple assault were high emphasis offenses. Efforts to target these types of crime are very consistent with the intent of Goal 1.

Prosecution of target area offenders was mentioned as a distinct part of the Weed and Seed program effort in all localities, and is clearly a foundational component of the Suppression Strategy outlined in the program guidelines. However, over the course of the project, only one location requested additional resources to address the increased prosecutorial caseload that results from intensified enforcement efforts. Even in that locality, this effort was discontinued in the third program year.

Goal 2

To establish and sustain strong community commitment, through local government and private sector partnerships, to a safe environment, free of crime, for law-abiding citizens to live, work and raise a family.

Goal 2 addresses several aspects of Weed and Seed program activities. The Community-Oriented Policing Strategy was employed by all localities in numerous ways. All localities increased patrols in the area, thereby increasing police visibility. Most localities made an effort to assign officers to specific parts of the target area on a regular basis, though some were more successful than others at maintaining specific officers in the target area. In the case of Winchester’s Residential Officer program, officers actually became target area residents and housed their patrol cars on site.

Another notable effort involved creating collaborative relationships between police and the community. For example, target area officers regularly attended community meetings in each locality. Police officers were also used in needs assessment efforts in multiple sites. However, implementation has been difficult for certain types of community collaboration efforts. Target area involvement in Citizens’ Patrols has been limited, and this component never became operational in Petersburg. Over the course of the project, Lynchburg has experienced some similar difficulties in increasing resident participation in some neighborhood committee activities.

All localities likewise engaged in the Neighborhood Restoration Strategy by increasing code enforcement efforts in the target areas. Code enforcement activities have reportedly improved the living conditions of many target area residents.

Goal 3

To help residents eliminate causes of crime within the community and stabilize the quality of life through viable employment, education, housing, economic development, recreation, treatment, crime prevention, victims services and community corrections initiatives.

Goal 3 emphasizes the application of the Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Strategy. This goal was addressed largely through various Seed programs at the Weed and Seed sites. The focus of these programs varied considerably across sites, though Seed program development was reportedly driven by local needs. One common element across programs was an emphasis on youth services. All localities had strong delinquency prevention / youth opportunity themes in their Seed activities. Most localities sought the assistance of area Boys and Girls Clubs or similar organizations that provide academic and recreational activities to youth in a positive environment. Other Seed activities that addressed this goal include, but are not limited to:

• Lynchburg’s resident homeowner assistance programs;
• Norfolk’s Youth Employment Program, which attempted to create employment opportunities for target area youth;
• Petersburg’s daycare assistance program, which increased opportunities for target area residents to gain / maintain employment; and
• Winchester’s Caretakers programs, which provided academic and recreational services for youth.

Goal 4

To enhance and maintain safe school environments through partnerships between law enforcement, education, private sector resource providers and social service agency providers.

Safety in the school environment, outlined in Goal 4, received very little attention throughout the Virginia Weed and Seed program. It may be arguable that the Seed emphasis on juvenile issues (including academic achievement programs) is addressing this problem, but there are clearly few programs that approach school safety directly. There were only two notable exceptions to this conclusion. Norfolk’s Positive Confrontation Program addressed anger management and conflict resolution skills within the school environment, and school officials referred participants to the program. Additionally, Lynchburg Police assisted school administrators in drafting a crisis intervention plan for area schools. Otherwise, school safety issues received little consideration in the existing Seed program components. As noted earlier, this particular goal is not addressed in the federal Weed and Seed program philosophy.

Recommendations

The lack of appropriate data on the Weed and Seed program and its impacts precludes us from forming a definitive assessment of this program’s long-term effects on target neighborhoods. However, local staff continue to be optimistic about the program, and report that the services are affecting target area residents in a number of positive ways. Although further research is needed to draw meaningful conclusions about this program, the preliminary findings may be useful to improve program administration and operations, both at the state and local level. Consequently, evaluators have developed several recommendations based on the qualitative and quantitative findings presented in this report. Although state funding for this program was discontinued in July 2000, most localities intend to continue their programming efforts in some capacity. Therefore, recommendations include guidance for Weed and Seed programs at the local level, as well as general suggestions for state planning of similar programs.

Foundational Issues

1. Local Weed and Seed programs should address problems with the lack of program "buy-in" and support of Weed and Seed activities by area residents. Community involvement should occur early in the process, whenever possible.

Difficulties with resident "buy-in" have affected these programs in several ways. The philosophy underlying the Weed and Seed program requires that the community be mobilized to respond to public safety needs. However, law enforcement officials in several of the communities repeatedly indicated that the residents "expect the police to do everything." These problems are evident in the difficulties Lynchburg has experienced in increasing membership in Neighborhood Councils. In addition, Petersburg struggled with establishing Citizens Patrols. One possible explanation for this lack of resident buy-in is that residents of high-crime areas may be skeptical of government-funded initiatives, which they perceive as coming and going in their neighborhoods with little overall impact. Feedback from at least one site early in the evaluation suggested this as a problem. Consequently, this perceived lack of government commitment to long-term solutions may result in a lack of citizen commitment and involvement.

However, the Weed and Seed initiative includes components designed to increase resident involvement. Both the Community Policing and the Seed components are intended to increase community participation and individual responsibilities. Although data are not available to thoroughly assess the level of resident involvement in the Weed and Seed areas, it seems clear that resident buy-in has been difficult to achieve for certain program components, such as citizen involvement in committees, councils and patrols and parental involvement in youth programs. Preliminary evaluation findings do suggest that a stronger neighborhood commitment to Weed and Seed initiatives may produce more active Seed components and more collaborative Weed efforts. In addition, findings from the National Evaluation of Weed and Seed indicate that residents should be involved in program planning early in the process to reduce resistance and increase cooperation (NIJ, 1999b). Therefore, future efforts to increase community buy-in should be seen as integral to program success.

2. Emphasis on the prosecutorial element of Weed and Seed should be increased.

The Weed component in three of the program sites did not include any grant-funded prosecutorial support over the entire three-year grant period. The only program which used Weed and Seed funds to provide prosecutorial support removed this component in the third year. Increased enforcement without increased resources to prosecute, adjudicate, and sentence offenders seems incompatible with the grant’s stated Suppression Strategy. Specifically, these activities should "consist primarily of enforcement, adjudication, prosecution, and supervision activities designed to target, apprehend, and incapacitate violent street criminals who terrorize neighborhoods and account for a disproportionate percentage of criminal activity" (DCJS, 1997, 1998, 1999b). In addition, failure to pursue aggressive prosecution may send the message to communities that the program philosophy is lenient. Overall, the prosecutorial aspect seems largely neglected in the state-funded programs. Failure to support Weed activities with adjudication and prosecution resources has likewise been noted as a problem in the National Evaluation of Weed and Seed (NIJ, 1999b; Roehl, et al., 1996).

3. Needs assessment techniques for the Seed program component should be improved to address target area needs more directly.

Although each locality engaged in residential surveys as a part of its initial program activities, most survey efforts neglected to capitalize on the opportunity to identify residents’ needs, particularly with respect to planning Seed services. In addition, most sites discontinued the survey efforts in subsequent program years. While each site used crime offense and arrest statistics to support the focus of their Weed activities, program staff generally had difficulties explaining how the Seed activities were determined. Only the Lynchburg program seemed to engage in a needs assessment process in the target area to plan the Seed program component. Other localities may have used citywide assessments to plan the programs; however, generalized assessments are not necessarily appropriate to guide neighborhood-specific programming. In addition, needs assessment activities should be performed regularly to identify changes in needs that require programming modifications.

It is critical for neighborhoods to adequately assess resident needs when planning to provide localized services. Otherwise, desired impacts may not occur because actual needs have not been addressed. Needs assessments should also assist in identifying appropriate boundaries for intervention. By identifying areas that are most in need, services can be concentrated in an optimal manner. Using needs assessments to pinpoint the most favorable target area is also indicted by findings from the National Evaluation, which clarifies the importance of narrowly defining the target population. The needs assessment process should involve not only area agencies, but also the community itself. These efforts are likely to encourage resident buy-in as well.

4. Weed and Seed program communities should facilitate strong leadership and interagency cooperation. Key individuals need to be actively involved and publicly supportive of the initiative.

According to the National Evaluation of Weed and Seed, the support of public officials support is a critical element to program success (NIJ, 1999b). Key individuals in law enforcement, city government, and the prosecutor’s office (as well as community leaders and program staff) should display strong leadership, support, and enthusiasm for the initiative, and engage in political collaboration. To further encourage public support, programs should be publicized regularly to raise community awareness and interest. Most program-related publicizing took place at the beginning of the first grant year, but did not continue throughout the three year program.

5. Private sector involvement is important to a program’s long- term success.

Government funding for programs is often short-term; therefore, supporting resources should be identified to continue these efforts after government funds are terminated. It is important to involve the private sector in the planning stages of the program for the same reasons it is important to involve the residents: creating buy-in and investment. The private sector can provide unique support in revitalizing communities by providing volunteer efforts, donations, and employment opportunities. The National Evaluation of Weed and Seed revealed that private sector investment, though very important to program success, was often neglected (NIJ, 1999b). In general, Virginia’s Weed and Seed programs likewise gave this issue very little attention.

Program Structure

6. Each local Weed and Seed program should employ a Program Coordinator who is dedicated to coordination tasks.

The grant objectives of both the Virginia and federal Weed and Seed initiatives emphasize the importance of coordinating the various Weed and Seed programs and activities. The Community-Oriented Policing Strategy highlights the importance of developing collaborative relationships between police and community residents. Over the course of the evaluation project, several Weed and Seed localities have experienced difficulties because they lack resources to adequately maintain these coordination duties, particularly with reporting program activities / outcomes and oversight of sub-contracting agencies. In some instances, existing full-time staff have been charged with these additional duties, significantly compromising the ability to effectively accomplish the coordination function. In the Winchester site, the Coordinator position was requested in the third-year grant application but was cut at the local level from the state-approved budget. This program cited this problem as a significant hindrance to its overall success.

Preliminary findings of this evaluation indicate that coordination of Weed and Seed programs and activities is necessary and should be done by a person who can dedicate at least half-time work to this function. The Program Coordinator should be responsible for coordinating and monitoring various activities of the local Weed and Seed program; encouraging citizen involvement; informing the locality and target areas of program-related activities and resources; and coordinating with program partners such as the media, prosecutor’s offices, and city government. The Program Coordinator could also improve the development of various partnerships in the localities.

General Strategies for Planning and Administering Similar Programs

7. Programs that incorporate significant administrative and programmatic complexity, such as Weed and Seed, should be carefully planned and monitored to maximize the potential for program impact.

Collaborative community-based program models, such as Weed and Seed, are organizationally complex due to their multi-faceted structures. Fundamental program elements that involve community participation and coordinated service delivery require sufficient time to develop. Therefore, similar programs should be carefully constructed by considering the broad lessons learned during the Weed and Seed program, as described below.

Program Planning and Development

Development of the Virginia Weed and Seed Initiative was accomplished very quickly. Both the administering agency and local grantees were required to develop program specifications within very short time frames. Such limited planning time may have contributed to some of the difficulties encountered over the three-year grant period, such as insufficient resident buy-in . In the future, adequate time should be allocated prior to program onset to allow the administering agency and localities to develop thoughtful and comprehensive program plans.

Further, program designs that are based on existing models should take care to maintain program integrity. The Virginia Weed and Seed Initiative, while modeled after the federal Weed and Seed program, deviated from the federal model in at least one significant way. The Virginia Initiative’s fourth goal, which specifically addresses school safety, was not highlighted in the federal model. Instead, the federal model contained a goal to address gang activity, which was not replicated in the Virginia Initiative guidelines. Given these differences, it is unclear whether it is reasonable to expect the Virginia model to produce effects similar to the federal program. Furthermore, Virginia’s school safety goal was largely disregarded in the local program designs. Only one site included any programming that directly addressed school safety. Because this goal was basically ignored, state and local program administrators should review its compatibility with the other major principles of Weed and Seed. Incongruous program goals should be avoided in order to maintain program focus and concentrate resources effectively.

A comprehensive program plan should also include development of evaluation and reporting procedures. These elements should be discussed in the program’s guidelines and be in place prior to program implementation. To assess program impacts, program administrators should require evaluation-relevant reporting and appropriate data collection from all grant recipients in these types of programs. In addition, evaluation efforts should be initiated prior to program implementation whenever possible.

Local Program Design and Accountability

Applicants for grant-funded programs should be required to submit a plan describing how they will measure the impact of their activities. The recipients of the Virginia Weed and Seed awards were required to have measurable goals and objectives, but were not required to address program outcomes. Consequently, grantees were not held accountable for producing desired program impacts and not required to explain the outcomes that their programs intended to produce. Localities that implement similar programs should seek technical assistance to establish outcome-based evaluation measures. State-funded grant programs should also be accountable for program outcomes rather than program implementation alone.

Additionally, collaborative community-based programs should be required to show evidence of community buy-in and cooperation or, at minimum, a detailed plan describing how it will be attained. According to the National Evaluation of Weed and Seed, these are essential elements in this type of program (NIJ, 1999b). If absent, the program has little chance of achieving its objectives. In this study, the localities that fostered community input and enthusiasm and who actively pursued citizen participation achieved their goals more readily than those who made little effort.

Further, program administrators and local programs should ensure partner and sub-grantee accountability. This problem emerged in our study when it was learned that some sub-grantees were not documenting their activities, thereby impairing the grantees’ ability to fulfill their reporting requirements. Guideline and award conditions should clarify that localities that choose to sub-contract for services will be responsible for the sub-grantees compliance with grant requirements. In addition, program partners should likewise be responsible for complying with the grant requirements.

Maintaining Program Consistency and Continuity

Over the three-year grant period, several programs in our study experienced difficulties in implementing selected program components. Although funding was awarded to continue these efforts, some programs seemed to need assistance gathering local support for some program components. To justify additional funding for faltering program components, grantees should be required to document implementation problems and develop problem-solving steps to improve progress. In addition, state program administrators should seek sources of training and technical assistance to aid localities in these situations. For example, training could be provided to grantees in the development and advancement of community partnerships.

Finally, state program administrators and local officials should ensure that program services be delivered without interruption from year to year. During the Weed and Seed program, delayed decisions to renew the program for the second year reportedly led to decreased public support and interruptions in service delivery. Consequently, the intensive enforcement aspect was disrupted, which reportedly led to losses of gained impact. To minimize these problems, decisions regarding continued funding should be made well in advance of application deadlines. Similar efforts should be made by local government officials to promptly approve funding for continued programs to avoid program interruption.

Continue on to Chapter 8 or
Return to the Table of Contents.