The Española Weed and Seed program spent $20,000 last year to commission an evaluation that has provided very little new information, analysis or measures of program outcomes.
The evaluation is being conducted by the Taos-based I2I Institute, which billed Weed and Seed last fall for a total of 40 days of work, at $500 per day. The result, so far, has been two slim reports totaling seven pages, which is the equivalent of $2,857.14 per page.
The primary report summarizes Weed and Seed activities through June 2008 and says it is focused on process, not outcomes.
“This first year has been focused primarily on information gathering,” the report states.
A second report analyzes student surveys given before and after an anti-drunk-driving presentation held at Española Valley and Escalante High Schools. The results were positive, but both schools are outside the program’s federally mandated target area — Española’s west side.
The bulk of the Institute’s evaluation work has yet to be completed. The company still plans to conduct a resident survey and analyze detailed crime data from the west side using mapping software purchased by Weed and Seed, documents state. But the company has maxed out its initial $20,000 contract, which was signed in January 2008.
Weed and Seed Coordinator Stephanie Marquez-Martinez acknowledged that the initial evaluation was “vague” and said she is meeting with the evaluators later this month to discuss a new contract and find out the status of the project. She said she will also receive a draft of a new report at that time.
Institute owner Marah Moore could not be reached for comment.
Even after these latest reports were done, the program has released no data in the last three years to show whether its initiatives have reduced crime in the west side.
What They Found
The first part of the Institute’s preliminary evaluation is based on interviews with the Weed and Seed Steering Committee, which meets twice a year.
The interviews were conducted after just four of the 20 members returned written surveys; others told the Institute they didn’t feel informed enough to complete it, were no longer on the Committee, or simply hadn’t taken the time to respond.
Española Police Chief Julian Gonzales said he couldn’t remember much about his interview because it was done a long time ago. He said it was the evaluator’s first time conducting such a survey.
“Basically they asked me questions about what we had done, things along that line,” Gonzales said. “It was kind of limited in the sense they weren’t as detailed as many people wanted them to be, for people to get the answers.”
Steering Committee member and Hoy Recovery Program Director Ben Tafoya declined to comment on the evaluation, saying he hadn’t seen the report and didn’t remember much about his interview. He said he mostly participates in Weed and Seed by attending Committee meetings and giving feedback.
“I think it’s made a lot of difference in relation to some of the referrals we get,” Tafoya said. “It’s not as critical as it used to be. People have become more aware of substance abuse.”
According to the Institute’s report, Committee members were asked seven questions. Their responses were summarized in a single paragraph.
“Results indicate that most Steering Committee members think the Coordinator is doing a good job, she works cooperatively, and provides supportive resources, including funding, for many local projects focused on improving the Española community,” it reads. “One of the main barriers seems to be the local newspaper; the medium’s criticism of (Weed and Seed) and/or ignoring (Weed and Seed) activities was mentioned by several interviewees. The political climate of Española was mentioned as being problematic (e.g. turf wars, competitiveness among agencies, and lack of community commitment). There is some concern that the project is reactive, rather than proactive. Two interviewees said it is not a mission driven project.”
Martinez said some Steering Committee members admitted to her that they were defensive at first, wary of someone outside the program asking questions due to the criticism the program has received in the SUN.
“People didn’t understand she was working for Weed and Seed,” Martinez said. “A lot of the Steering Committee members were real defensive.”
The rest of the evaluation includes a rudimentary tally of Weed and Seed community events during 2005, 2006 and 2007, broken into five basic categories, and a summary of how Martinez divvied up her time during the four months from December 2007 to March 2008.
According to that summary, which is based on Martinez’s own activity logs, more than half her time was spent on administrative tasks or in a catch-all category that included grant writing, general paperwork and sharing information with tribal entities interested in applying for Weed and Seed funds. Another quarter of her time was spent on prevention, intervention and treatment activities, such as drug court staffing, and another large chunk of time when to law-enforcement projects.
“It’s clear that one goal, neighborhood restoration, received no time during the three months of accumulated logs,” the report states.
Martinez said the program is very strict on how funding can be used for “neighborhood restoration,” a line item which generally refers to taking over abandoned drug houses and renovating them, sometimes into community spaces. She’s had trouble finding people on the west side willing to donate their buildings, and so that line item was left blank, Martinez said. She said if the evaluator had asked about it, she would have recommended including anti-graffiti work done by the program.
Requirements
Weed and Seed is a federal program designed to “weed” out criminal behavior and “seed” community development in target neighborhoods.
In the current fiscal year, Española’s program is eligible for $200,000 in federal monies. That joins the $600,000 it has been granted since 2005. The program struggled in its early years to actually spend that money, and what was spent went to program overhead, including half of Martinez’s annual salary of $50,000 (the city of Española provides the other half) and toward purchasing police equipment and overtime. “Seeding” activities have included in-school programs for middle-schoolers, an overnight children’s camp and community events like Spañapalooza.
The federal Justice Department, which funds Weed and Seed programs across the nation, requires local sites to conduct evaluations to gauge how well individual initiatives are working. It advises them to work with independent agencies to do so.
“The (Department) requires you to have evaluations to show sustainability once the funding ends,” Martinez said.
Martinez said the Española program is now in its final funded year, though it can spend its accumulated funding through June 2010.
Martinez said the Institute was brought on board in Española years ago, before she was hired as program coordinator. The company came recommended by the U.S. Attorney’s office because of its previous work with local governments, Martinez said.
Martinez said the high cost of an outside evaluation was one reason why it took the program years to sign a contract — the budget item was capped at $10,000, and most companies wanted far more than that. She said Moore was a big help to the program.
According to the Institute’s invoice, it reduced its fee from $750 per day to $500 per day.
Martinez said once funding was set aside, staffing turnover among evaluators caused further delays. There is now a new evaluator assigned to Española, and Moore is open to making revisions and filling in gaps where things were missed, Martinez said.