place him in the same office as the first Specialist, thus having
both Specialists primarily working for the same U.S. Attorney and
the same community;
locate the second Specialist in the same district as the first
Specialist, but in a field office of the OUSA, thereby having both
Specialists reporting to the same U.S. Attorney, but servicing
separate communities; or
situate the second Specialist in a separate district within the ECE
region, and in this way have each Specialist support different U.S.

Attorneys and communities.

In establishing the first seven units, only one unit was staffed with two Specialists, the second Specialist having been employed only a few months prior to the initiation of the study team's field work. Thus, there was

insufficient evidence for the study team to fully assess the advantages of

two Specialists in one region. However, the following observations, based on the study team's review of the operations of one Specialist in a region, should be considered by CRM management in the process of making decisions regarding the three alternative locations.

Located in the Same Office. Where two Specialists are located in the same district, further expansion of the program in that district, e.g., greater

involvement at the State and local levels, or the initiation of coordination

with the business community, can be undertaken.

In addition, with the colloca

tion of the two Specialists, a closer coordination of their program efforts

is possible. However, one possible problem from further expansion in a

district is that it may overextend the OUSA's resources, thus creating an undesirable imbalance in the resource commitments of both the OUSA and the

program. Overextending the OUSA's resources could lead to a problem of

unduly raising the expectations for the program held by investigative agencies, thus, hindering the Specialist's attempts to gain the cooperation and confidence of these agencies. Having both Specialists in one district also fails

to eliminate the difficulties that arise from the practical considerations

of one Specialist serving non-unit districts such as travel and expense; nor

does it reduce the multiplicity of reporting requirements for the Specialists:

to CRM, to the district U.S. Attorney, and, in some capacity, to one, two,

three, or four non-unit district V.S. Attorneys, depending on the ECE region.

Located in the Same District but Separate Offices.

The location of the two

Specialists in separate offices allows for a more substantial involvement in

a second community, thus, broadening the program's area of influence. By working in the same district, however, the Specialists are still primarily a

catalyst for change in the operations of only one U.S. Attorney, and before

they can expand their activities in this respect, they will have to overcome

the practical considerations involved in serving the non-unit districts.

Located in Separate Districts.

In separate districts, the Specialists should

be able to effect a greater expansion into the region, e.g., acting as change

agents in two separate OUSAs, or developing a greater understanding of program objectives within Federal enforcement agencies in two districts on a "full

time" basis.

The use of two Specialists in this manner creates a national

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 undesir

able. 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.

Recommendations

That CRM define the organizational relationship of the Specialist
to the OUSA in non-unit districts, and delineate his responsibilities

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

Specialist could be used in an ECE region; and
That CRM establish basic policy guidelines for the reallocation

of CRM resources.

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 objec

tives 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;