The National Weed and Seed Program

Weed and Seed programming emerged as a federal grant program in 1991. In general, the intent of Weed and Seed is to eliminate violent and drug-related crime from targeted neighborhoods and to provide safer living environments for residents in high-crime areas. The term "Weed" represents law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts to suppress and eradicate crime, and the term "Seed" represents programs and services designed to turn a troubled community into a strong community where crime cannot take root (Executive Office for Weed and Seed, 2000a).

Multiple factors guided the development of Weed and Seed as a national strategy (Roehl, Huitt, Wycoff, Pate, Rebovich & Coyle, 1996). Initially, several law enforcement projects in the Philadelphia area stimulated interest in collaborative criminal justice services. These projects had engaged cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, as well as community organizations and neighborhood residents. In addition, research indicated that intensive enforcement efforts could be effective, but suggested including collateral strategies for greater impact. Cited strategies included citizen-based anti-drug efforts, prosecutorial collaboration, community policing, and multi-agency / multi-level collaborations. According to the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) Evaluation of Weed and Seed Cross-Site Analysis, as of July 1999, the number of sites nationwide that were served by Weed and Seed reached two hundred (NIJ, 1999b).

Previous evaluations of federal Weed and Seed programs suggest that many factors can effect the successful implementation. For example, a recent evaluation of federal Weed and Seed programs suggests that crime reductions may be easier to achieve in areas that have very high crime rates, but no "deep-seated" crime problems (National Institute of Justice, 1999b). "Deep-seated" crimes are crimes such as gang violence, which may be firmly embedded in a community. Additionally, the National Evaluation determined that it is often easier to revitalize targeted neighborhoods closest to thriving commercial areas. Localities such as Pittsburgh, PA and Shreveport, LA, both of which have declining industries, have found revitalization efforts to be difficult (NIJ, 1999b). The stability of the population living in the targeted area is another factor that the National Evaluation reports may effect the successful implementation of Weed and Seed. Research has shown that it is often more difficult for Seed programs to "take root" or community policing to build strong community relations in areas with highly transient populations (NIJ, 1999b). Studies also suggest that it is usually more effective to concentrate the majority of program resources on a relatively small target area (NIJ, 1999a; Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 1998). The more narrowly defined the targeted population, the greater the chance of success in fighting crime with a limited budget.

In addition to the previously mentioned factors, research indicates that it is also important that residents living in targeted areas get involved in Weed and Seed during the implementation phases of the program. Early involvement is necessary because residents of targeted areas may initially be resentful that their neighborhood has been singled out for increased law enforcement efforts and may be reluctant to get involved if not fully informed early in the process (NIJ, 1999b). An evaluation of the Springfield, IL program concluded that residents should be involved with Weed and Seed even before public announcement of the project through the news media (Hanna, 1993). When residents are fully informed and included in program planning early on, they are less likely to see Weed and Seed as a form of harassment, will feel empowered to take responsibility for their neighborhood, and be more likely to cooperate with law enforcement efforts.

The successful implementation of Weed and Seed not only requires commitment by residents of the community but also requires active and constructive leadership of key individuals (NIJ, 1999b). This includes police personnel, community leaders, program staff, and prosecuting attorneys. The most effective leaders foster an environment of collaboration and coordination. According to the National Evaluation, those communities whose leaders were the most divided and discordant struggled the most with implementation of Weed and Seed. Other communities had problems with weak prosecution of Weed and Seed cases due to various institutional, political, and judicial issues (NIJ, 1999b). As a result, repeat offenders were often released on parole leading to the extreme dissatisfaction of program officials and residents. An active and aggressive prosecutor is needed to ensure that Weed and Seed cases receive special attention; however, this element was lacking in most of the eight sites examined (NIJ, 1999b).

Finally, the National Evaluation of Weed and Seed revealed that although private sector investment is essential to ensuring the success of Weed and Seed, most sites gave this component very little attention (NIJ, 1999b). Ideally, representatives from the private sector should work closely with public agencies to design, develop, and implement Weed and Seed activities (Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 1998).

Description of the Virginia Initiative

Virginia became active in the federal Weed and Seed project in 1992 when the City of Richmond was awarded federal funds to begin a local program. Richmond’s Weed and Seed project was the only such project funded in the state until 1997. At that time, Governor George Allen introduced a state initiative to fund similar projects in other high-need localities. In May 1997, approximately $1 million in state grant funds was made available to Virginia localities for the first year of the Virginia Weed and Seed Initiative. In general, this program sought to improve the quality of life for residents living in particularly distressed neighborhoods (DCJS, 1999a). Modeled after the U.S. Department of Justice’s Federal Weed and Seed initiative, the Virginia Weed and Seed project was in operation for three full years in the localities of Lynchburg, Norfolk, Winchester, and Petersburg. State funding for these programs was discontinued on June 30, 2000.

The specific goals and strategies of Virginia’s Weed and Seed effort are outlined below. These guiding principles have remained unchanged since program onset.

Program Goals

As outlined in the Virginia "Weed and Seed" Initiative guidance documents (DCJS, 1997, 1998, 1999b), the program was designed to "focus the resources of the state and localities in a high-priority, multi-disciplinary strategy to reduce drug-related and other violent crime, and the fear of crime in Virginia’s communities." The broad goals of the program are:

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

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

• 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.

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

Program Elements

Virginia Weed and Seed programs, consistent with the philosophies of the federal Weed and Seed initiative, used a two-pronged approach to reduce drug-related and violent crime in certain targeted, high crime neighborhoods (Executive Office for Weed and Seed, 2000a; DCJS, 1999a). The first approach--"weeding"--involves concentrated law enforcement efforts to eradicate crime. The second component--"seeding"-- aims to transform targeted areas from high crime areas into places where crime cannot thrive. The program guidelines (DCJS, 1997, 1998, 1999b) outlined the four major strategies that were expected to be incorporated into local Weed and Seed project designs:

1. Suppression Strategy

This strategy is the foundation of the Weed component. Suppression includes "enforcement, adjudication, prosecution, and supervision activities designed to target, apprehend and incapacitate violent street criminals..." Such activities may include special operations such as street sweeps, and often involve coordinated law enforcement efforts.

2. Community-Oriented Policing Strategy

Community-oriented policing is conceptualized as the "bridge" between the Weed component and the Seed component. This strategy focuses on increased enforcement visibility and developing collaborative relationships between police and community residents.

3. Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Strategy

Prevention, intervention, and treatment function as the first steps in the Seed process. This strategy incorporates the intensive provision of human services to thwart the return of criminal behaviors, mobilize residents for involvement, and provide community support. Activities under this strategy may be oriented towards youth, adults, schools, and / or the community as a whole.

4. Neighborhood Restoration Strategy

This strategy serves as the second step in the Seed programming component. Neighborhood restoration is targeted to improve the quality of life in distressed neighborhoods and to foster individual responsibility for community issues. Activities typically focus on increasing economic development, improving living conditions, and providing expanded educational, economic, social and recreational opportunities.

Differences between Virginia and Federal Program Requirements

Although Virginia Weed and Seed programs are modeled after the federal Weed and Seed initiative, there are some notable differences between federal and state Weed and Seed requirements. First, recent federal guidelines specify that the majority of Weed and Seed funds must be used to support Seed activities (Executive Office for Weed and Seed, 2000b). In contrast, Virginia specified that the majority of funds be allocated to Weed activities in the first two years but made no specifications during the third grant cycle.

Another major difference between federal and state Weed and Seed requirements is that, unlike federal programs, Virginia does not require each site to have a designated Safe Haven. Safe Havens, as specified under federal Weed and Seed guidelines, are multi-service centers where a variety of youth and adult services are coordinated in a highly visible, accessible facility (Executive Office for Weed and Seed, 2000b).

In addition to the slightly different program requirements, Virginia Weed and Seed programs and the federal Weed and Seed initiative also vary slightly in their respective goals. For example, the federal Weed and Seed initiative mentions preventing, controlling, and reducing gang activity as a key goal (Executive Office for Weed and Seed, 2000a). No reference to eradicating gang activity is included in guidelines for Virginia’s Weed and Seed programs. In addition, Virginia’s Weed and Seed guidelines specifically outline enhancing and maintaining the safety of school environments as a goal (VDCS, 1997, 1998, 1999b). However, this goal is not included for the federal program.

Continue on to Chapter 4 or
Return to the Table of Contents.