in order to determine if each unit is functioning within program

guidelines, and to identify unit accomplishments;

To identify programmatic and organizational issues which influence
the achievement of program goals, including the effect of the
varying ECE unit models on the achievement of program objectives;
to analyze study findings in order to identify those factors which
ought to exist for an ECE unit to operate effectively in an Office
of the U.S. Attorney (OUSA); and to develop recommendations for
improving management of the program.

The study team, consisting of three analysts from the Evaluation Staff, Justice Management Division (JMD) and two analysts from the Office of Policy and Management Analysis, CRM, conducted on-site visits to the U.S. Attorneys' Offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles, California; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbia, South Carolina. For data gathering purposes, an interview questionnaire was developed and reports were prepared to document each interview.

Interview

sessions at most locations were held with the U.S. Attorney, the First Assistant, Chief of the Criminal Section, Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) assigned to or working with the ECE unit, the ECE Unit Chief, the ECE Specialist, a special agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), agents from other major investigating agencies, and managerial and agent personnel from various Offices of the Inspectors General (OIG). The District Reports, formal six month reports of each unit prepared by the Specialist and submitted to the OECE, provided background data on unit developments, problems and accomplishments.

This report contains two principal parts: the first part sets forth an explanation of the program's rationale, a discussion of the design and development of the organizational and operational concepts of the ECE program, and a description of program achievements to date (Chapters I, II, and III), while the second part is a discussion of issues affecting program implementation (Chapter IV).

The ECE program design is flexible, allowing the Specialist to adapt program implementation to the individuality of his OUSA in order to address its characteristics, conditions and needs. Each Specialist may stress different objectives at varying stages of unit and program development, even though all Specialists are working toward, and prospectively achieving, the same goals. This led the study team to the conclusion that, at this time, a unit-by-unit comparison is inappropriate. To avoid the indiscriminate comparisons of the seven units which might occur if reported separately, the findings of this study are reported in an aggregate fashion.

In many interview situations, references were made to specific active and completed criminal cases in order to illustrate specific program features, activities and accomplishments. While an analysis of specific white-collar crime cases was not within the formal scope of this study, case accomplishments are reflected in many of the program accomplishments discussed in this report.

The subject and scope of white-collar crime embraces a number of terms which are frequently used interchangeably while evoking different connotations, for

example, economic crime, fraud, and public corruption. The nature and scope of criminal activities often associated with these terms unfortunately does not permit the formulation of neat, precise definitions. To be consistent, the study team has chosen to use the term "white-collar crime" throughout this report, when speaking to the subject matter of the ECE program. Also for purposes of this report, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix I; these terms are intended to be general working definitions, applicable to the context of the study, rather than standard definitions.

Finally, the study team recognizes that many AUSAS, several Specialists, and a few U.S. Attorneys, are women. For purposes of the report narrative, however, the decision was made to use the term "he," generally to refer to both men and women in these positions, rather than "he/she" terminology or other variations of this structure. This is done solely to make the report narrative more readable.

BACKGROUND

The ECE program was formally established on February 8, 1979 by Attorney General Order 817-79 (Appendix II) which established OECE in CRM and provided for the creation of ECE units within selected OUSAs. The development of this program was preceded by a series of related events, activities and studies generated by private and public organizations which helped to enunciate the scope and magnitude of the nation's white-collar crime problem. Among these organizations were the American Bar Association (ABA), the Chamber of Commerce, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the U.S. Congress. Some of the more notable events that heightened an awareness of the need for a more structured approach to address the white-collar crime problem nationally were:

O 1975

1977

о 1977

Attorney General Levi formed a White-Collar Crime Committee,
composed of Federal investigators and prosecutors, to examine
the problem of white-collar crime and the Federal response.
The Committee found the response inadequate (1975-1976).
ABA's Committee on Economic Offenses 1977 Report concluded
that the Federal effort toward white-collar crime was "under-
funded, undirected, and uncoordinated," and where resources
existed, they were either "underutilized, or frustrated by
jurisdictional considerations." (Economic Offenses. Section
on Criminal Justice, Committee on Economic Offenses, Washing-
ton, D.C.).

Attorney General Bell declared fraud and public corruption to
be two of the Department's four major law enforcement priorities.

1978 Congress passed the Inspector General Act, mandating the

1978

1979

establishment of Inspectors General offices in major Federal
departments and agencies,* "to conduct and supervise audits
and investigations relating to programs and operations" as
well as: (A) to promote economy, efficiency and effective-
ness in the administration of [such programs and operations];
and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such programs
and operations."

GAO initiated a review of the Department's efforts in attacking
public corruption. This report, issued in 1980, found the
current efforts to be inadequate, but indicated that a recently
developed program (the ECE program) may provide the basis to
adequately centralize, prioritize and focus the Department's
efforts. (GAO Report: Justice Needs to Better Manage Its
Fight Against Public Corruption, July 24, 1980.)
President Carter established an Executive Group to Combat
Fraud, Waste and Abuse in Government, chaired by the Deputy
Attorney General, with responsibility to provide leadership
and formulate policy and operational guidance to the Inspectors
General and other offices of the Executive Branch in combatting
fraud, waste and abuse in government programs.

Prior to the Inspector General Act of 1978, many of the major Federal departments and agencies had, in part, an analogous Inspector General function which was administered through their respective offices of inspection or audit or investigation. [P.L. 95-452 Section 9(a)]