program which has a broad scope of less intensive activities rather than the concentration of activities that can be developed with two Specialists in one location. This arrangement can also streamline the Specialists' reporting relationships to the regional U.S. Attorneys. The drawbacks to this approach include: the lack of collocation which can enhance the Specialists' ability to closely coordinate their activities and the increase in lag time for program development which results from having more OUSAs requiring a period of adjustment to program objectives.

Given the above considerations, CRM, in deciding where to place the second Specialist, needs to assess the possible impact the Specialist may have on the ECE region through the various locations. In a region comprised primarily of a larger OUSA, e.g., the region covered by the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office, where a greater number of resources within that office can perhaps be made available on a full-time basis for white-collar crime enforcement, further expansion of the program through that office may be desirable. In other regions composed of two or more medium sized offices, e.g., Portland, Oregon region, consideration of the problems associated with serving non-unit offices, and the limited amount of OUSA resources in any one office that can be devoted to white-collar crime, may make it more effective to locate the second Specialist in another district within the region, Seattle, Washington, with some provision for the coordination of efforts between the two regional Specialists.

The Reallocation of Resources. The selection of an OUSA to house an ECE unit was based upon several criteria. The most important consideration was the

willingness of the U.S. Attorney to have such a unit in his district and to accept the role and function of the Specialist within the unit. In addition, there was a consideration of the perceived magnitude of the district's whitecollar crime problem, which was based on the best current information about that problem.

As the response of the law enforcement community in a district to the ECE program can be assessed and as information improves concerning the district's white-collar crime problem, CRM management may have to make decisions about resource reallocation. Where the law enforcement agencies resist any necessary

shift in emphasis toward white-collar crime, or where improved information indicates that the white-collar crime problems in other districts may be more pressing, the continued resource allocation to that district may be undesirable. To effect a smooth transition in such cases, CRM management should develop a policy for the reallocation of CRM resources.

Conclusions

That the ECE program's national scope will be limited to the total number of ECE units until the relationship and role of the Specialist

to the 63 non-unit Federal judicial districts is defined; and

That there is a need to better define the role and function of a
second Specialist within an ECE region and/or ECE unit district.

to the OUSA in non-unit districts, and delineate his responsibilities

to those non-unit districts;

O That CRM conduct a needs assessment to determine if and how a second

WHAT PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT IS NECESSARY IN A DISTRICT TO ENSURE THE
SUCCESSFUL INITIATION OF AN ECE UNIT?

A review of the initial seven locations indicated that varying forms of organizational relationships between and among ECE program participants have achieved some measure of success in meeting program objectives. An analysis of the study's findings, however, reveals a number of factors or conditions that affect the success a Specialist can have in program implementation and the achievement of program objectives. The primary factors affecting this success are related to the degree of acceptance of the Specialist and his assimilation into the OUSA, and include:

the degree of acceptance by the U.S. Attorney of the goals and objectives of the program;

the degree of acceptance, by the U.S. Attorney, the Unit Chief, the AUSAS assigned to the unit and other professional staff in the OUSA, of the Specialist, his position, role and function;

the location of the Specialist's office in relationship to the ECE unit;

the support the Specialist receives, i.e., the clerical assistance, equipment and supplies provided for him;

Additional factors which may affect the degree of success the Specialist has in implementing the Program include the OUSA's attitude toward DOJ and the investigative agencies, and the investigative agencies' attitude toward the OUSA and each other. These factors and conditions have an affect upon the working environment in which the program operates, and in turn, they affect the ability of the Specialist to successfully implement the program in a particular district.

Το

The U.S. Attorney's acceptance of the ECE program, its goals and objectives are reflected in the organizational position, support, authority and credence he gives the Specialist. It is the U.S. Attorney who determines the Specialist's relationship to the unit and the support the Specialist receives. an extent, the U.S. Attorney also influences the Specialist's acceptance by other office members and their perception of the Specialist's position, role and function in their district, through his exercise of operational control over the unit. Certainly, a major factor in the Specialist's acceptance within the OUSA is his credibility. Given the U.S. Attorney's role in the selection of the Specialist his absolute veto power the Specialist's qualifications must be acceptable to him. However, the U.S. Attorney may then take actions which can inadvertently impinge upon the Specialist's acceptance

and position in the office, thereby affecting the Specialist's ability to execute completely the objectives of the program. For example, the U.S. Attorney is to provide support and an office location for the Specialist. The study team found that the Specialist's office location can affect the attitudes of the persons with whom he works and his ability to execute his responsibilities:

if the Specialist's office is not colocated with the unit, there
is a tendency for some personnel, both internal and external to the
OUSA, to view him as not a part of the ECE unit;

if the Specialist's office is not private, then an atmosphere which
will foster a free, professional exchange of information between
himself and other program participants is made more difficult; and/or
if the Specialist is not provided adequate clerical support, it has
an adverse affect on those program activities which require such
support, such as his reporting requirements to OECE.

By giving the Specialist private, collocated office space and adequate clerical support, the U.S. Attorney alleviates the effects caused by these problems and creates an atmosphere that can foster acceptance and cooperation, and allows the Specialist to complete his work more efficiently.

The Specialist, as a representative of the Department, working through the OUSA to enhance their white-collar crime enforcement efforts, can have a positive impact upon the OUSA's perception of the Department. By providing the OUSA with assistance in enhancing the prosecutive goals of the Department, without