Изображения страниц

management, are meant to be used as general guidelines to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the program, rather than as ironclad rules which

must be followed without regard to the particular circumstances of a given



That the goals and objectives of the ECE program provide an adequate

rationale for the structure of the program and the function of the

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

CRM with respect to the ECE program provides an effective strategy

for addressing the problems of economic crime enforcement and for

utilizing available resources in a more efficient and accountable

manner; and

[ocr errors]

That the ECE units studied generally conform to the program's

conceptual design and organizational structure.


The ECE program was created as a national response to white-collar crime. It places a strong emphasis on white-collar crime enforcement and seeks to enhance the Department's effectiveness in this priority area by increasing the coordina

tion and information flow between all parties interested or involved in the

enforcement effort. The subjects discussed in the first three chapters make

it evident that this program can, and will accomplish this goal; however,

consideration of the issues discussed in this chapter and the incorporation of their respective recommendations can further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness the Department can achieve in this program initiative.

The Effect of the Design and Location of the 30 ECE Units on the National

Scope of the Program. In establishing the ECE program, it was CRM's intention to create a national program to combat a national problem by locating 30 ECE units, with one or two ECE Specialists, in selected OUSAs to cover the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. This national focus requires

that most of the existing and proposed ECE units' regions cover more than one Federal judicial district, thereby creating in most regions a district ECE unit and one or more non-unit districts. According to plan, full implementation of the program will result in Specialists covering 30 unit districts

and 63 non-unit districts.

To ensure the program's national focus, the Deputy Attorney General's

implementing memorandum provided for the Specialist to service non-unit

districts as follows:

"...all districts will essentially be included within a region serviced

by a Criminal Division Economic Crime Enforcement Specialist... [who] will provide an intelligence source for the United States Attorney and

personnel in handling economic crime matters, and provide guidance for

" drafting indictments and motions.

When performing services for the

non-unit offices, the Specialist or any other Criminal Division Attorney will report only to the Criminal Division and the United States Attorney for that non-unit district. The handling of each district's economic

crime cases will be the responsibility of each district's United States Attorney. The coordination of efforts made by each unit or non-unit office within a region will be the responsibility of the Economic Crime Enforcement Specialist."

While the implementing memorandum provided for the functional relationship

of the Specialist to the non-unit district, it did not specify the relationship

of the Specialist to the U.S. Attorney or to the AUSAs in non-unit districts.

This lack of a definitive organizational relationship between the Specialist and his non-unit districts could present a dilemma for the Specialist attempting

to effect change in the non-unit OUSA's prosecution of white-collar crime cases.

In addition, it can reasonably be inferred from the Deputy Attorney General's

implementing memorandum (Appendix III) that the Specialist is to serve the nonunit districts in the same or similar capacity as the unit district. However, given the practical considerations of travel, time, and expense, a question arises as to whether the Specialist can effectively serve more than one district.

The Specialist's role and scope of activity, budget limitations and demands on

his time suggest that substantial service to non-unit districts simultaneously within a unit district cannot be achieved as efficaciously as would service restricted primarily to the unit district with limited participation in

non-unit districts.

Another factor to be considered in assessing the national scope of the program

is the relative size of OUSAs in unit and non-unit districts and their relationship to program design. As noted earlier, the initial seven unit locations

were selected, in part, on the basis of office size OECE initially chose medium sized offices as their target, but added one large office to assess

its adaptibility to the ECE program.

A comparison of the staffing allocations

of the 93 program OUSAs to the 30 selected sites, shows that the primary target for ECE units continued to be large and medium sized offices, (see Chart V below) thus reinforcing a design focused on larger OUSAS.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The program design for the location of the 30 ECE units incorporates an

implicit recognition that small offices could not effectively participate in the unit plan, since such full participation in the program would signifi. cantly reduce their ability to discharge other prosecutorial duties. It would appear, therefore, that the relationship of the Specialist and the ECE program to the 53 small non-unit offices would necessarily need to be different

than it would be for the large or medium size unit and non-unit districts.

As noted, white-collar crime cases can be complex and time-consuming.


[ocr errors]

For a complete breakdown of figures see Appendix VI.

limited resources both of the program and of the smaller OUSAs generally do

not allow full coverage of the program in the smaller offices. One method of

bringing these small offices into the program is to have the Specialist

assist on a case-by-case basis. He could compile an initial survey for the OUSA to identify those areas of white-collar crime which appear to be a significant problem in that district. When a sizeable case in those priority

areas is brought to the OUSA, the Specialist could review the case, and

provide the OUSA guidance as to the manner in which they should proceed.

Therefore, while the program is designed to have a national focus, the national

dimensions of the program

an be affected by: the allocation of prosecutive

resources among the large, medium and small OUSAs; the relationship of the Specialist to non-unit districts; the practical limitations of time, distance and budget imposed on a Specialist working within a multi-district region; and the willingness of the U.S. Attorney to accept and support the ECE program in his district. While the ECE program deals with a national problem, in effect, the program's national scope will be limited primarily to 30 unit districts until an adequate plan for addressing the functions and operations

of the non-unit districts and their relationship to the unit districts is


The Utilization of the Two Specialist Concept. Interrelated with the issue of whether 30 units can effect a national program is the question of how to

best utilize CRM's Specialists to ensure this coverage. CRM's plan is to

two Specialists in most of the 30 ECE regions. This plan allows for three possible arrangements for locating the second Specialist within the region:

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »