The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Developing Empirically-Driven Public 

Corruption Prevention Strategies

Author(s): Jay S. Albanese 

Document Number: 254660 

Date Received: June 2020

Award Number: 2015-IJ-CX-0007

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
1

Final Summary Overview

for the

National Institute of Justice, Office of Research and Evaluation

Final Summary Overview for Grants Awarded in FY14 and Beyond

https://www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/post-award-reporting.aspx#finalsummary

Starting with grants awarded in 2014, grantees will no longer be required to submit a 

Final Technical Report. Rather, they are expected to generate scholarly products, such as 

peer reviewed journal articles, law review articles, patents and prototypes, as 

appropriate. In addition, grantees are required to submit a Final Summary Overview. The 

Overview will summarize the research project and include sections that state the purpose, 

project subjects (if applicable), project design and methods, data analysis, findings, and 

implications for criminal justice policy and practice in the United States. The Final 

Summary Overview should not exceed 10 double-spaced pages and should be submitted 

90 days before the project’s end date.

Final Summary Overview

July, 2018 

Purpose

This project was designed to conduct research to answer three fundamental questions 

about public corruption:

• Why are a significant number of public corruption cases still occurring over 

many years, despite many significant convictions? 

• Are there circumstances common to these cases that can be addressed more 

effectively? (i.e., motivations, opportunities, sanctions) 

• What can be done in the future to reduce and respond to instances of public 

corruption, especially given their deleterious impact on public trust in 

government? 

Project Design and Methods

 1. Preliminary preparation to data collection:

 Reporting Period Start and End Dates Final Summary Overview

Grant # 2015-IJ-CX-0007

Grantee Organization Name Virginia Commonwealth University

Grant Start Date and End Date January 1, 2016 – September 30, 2018

Project Title Developing Empirically-Driven Public 

Corruption Prevention Strategies

Principal Investigator (PI) Name Jay S. Albanese

PI e-mail address jsalbane@vcu.edu

PI phone number 703-819-8830

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2

a. Interview forms were developed for each interview constituency. 

Interviewees: 

I-Investigators (N=18)

A-Attorneys (N=22)

O-Offenders, Victims, Insiders, Undercover and Whistleblowers (N=15)

S-Stakeholders, Community Activists, Researchers (N=18)

b. IRB review and approval at VCU.

c. HSPO review and approval at NIJ. 

2. Data

a. Case summaries obtained of all federal convictions 2013-15 (from U.S Attorney’s 

Offices). 

b. Court document analysis of a sample of these cases (via PACER - Public Access to 

Court Electronic Records) 

c. Statistical data on all public corruption cases covering 30 years, 1986-2015 (federal 

statistical data obtained via Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse with 

analysis using SPSS.) 

d. In-person interviews with individual in for groups. Ultimate total interviews 

(N=73 conducted in 35 cities in 13 states)

Data Analysis

1. Determine statute usage in public corruption cases (statistically over time and 

using PACER analysis of court documents).

2. Added participants' perspectives with interview data from 4 distinct interview 

groups. Coded all interviews and analyzed them using MaxQDA qualitative 

analysis software.

3. Developed a unique typology of public corruption cases (the underlying corrupt 

behaviors) through the statistical data on prosecutions and convictions, court 

documents, and interview data.

4. Developed findings and products applying theory and prior research to the 

current analysis (using statistical data, case narratives, case documents, 

interviews).

Findings

1. Public and private sector corruption differ conceptually. When a person or business 

is exploited or victimized by a private company or person, the victim can choose to 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3

work with other companies in the future that engage in fair treatment of suppliers, 

customers, and competitors. On the other hand, when doing business with the state, 

the government has a monopoly over the goods and services you require (e.g., 

licenses, business permits, public contracts, the criminal justice system), so there is 

no place else to go to obtain these services. Similarly, without trust in the police for 

assistance when needed, there is no other agency to call. Instead, people may take 

protection into their own hands, leading to further violence.

2. Public corruption is a more serious public threat because it undermines confidence 

in government, the legitimacy of government institutions, and the ability of citizens 

to be treated fairly in their interactions with government entities. When operating 

appropriately, government entities perform an arbitration role to resolve conflicts or 

decide among bidders (e.g., police arrest decisions, prosecution decisions, judicial 

rulings, government procurement decisions). Private businesses do not have a 

similar function in that they entail private transactions. As a result, public 

corruption has far-reaching societal implications beyond that of corruption in the 

private sector, because private sector corruption affects some people, whereas public 

corruption affects all people. 

3. Controlling public sector corruption is a prerequisite for controlling private sector 

corruption, because without government operations characterized by non-corrupt 

transactions, it is impossible to regulate the private sector effectively.

4. Although federal corruption cases have been brought using 58 different lead charges 

over the last 30 years, only 10 of these charges account for nearly 60% of all cases 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4

made. These 10 charges target four types of underlying behavior, which together

form the operational meaning of corruption in practice.

5. It was found that two features distinguish corruption cases: the objective of the 

offense and the method by which the object was pursued. The objective in all the 

cases reviewed was either some form of theft, or else a misuse use of official 

authority. Money or personal enrichment of some kind characterized one large 

group of cases, and misuse of official authority for some kind of personal or political 

advantage, or escaping detection, was the object of another large group of cases. 

6. At least one of eight different forms of corrupt conduct lay at the foundation of 

every one of the more than 2,400 corruption prosecutions occurring over three years 

and analyzed in depth. These eight distinct types of behavior characterized every 

prosecution, whether the object of the corruption was theft or misuse of official 

authority (8 types: receipt of bribe, solicitation of bribe, extortion, contract fraud, 

embezzlement, official misconduct, obstruction of justice, violation of regulatory 

laws).

7. The review of 2,419 cases, followed by closer scrutiny of 313 cases selected to 

represent each identified corruption type, resulted in a corruption typology. Each of 

the eight behaviors were assigned shorter names for coding and summary purposes:

Receivers – receiving bribes

Solicitors – solicitation of bribes

Extorters – demands or threats for official action in exchange for payments

Schemers – contracting and procurement fraud

Opportunists – embezzlement

Abusers – official misconduct

Liars – obstruction of justice

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5

Insiders – violators of regulatory laws

8. Applying the eight-part typology of corruption behaviors to several hundred 

corruption cases found that receipt of bribery was the most common behavior, 

occurring in 23% of the cases as a primary, secondary, or tertiary behavior. Second 

most common was embezzlement, which occurred in 19% of the cases, followed by 

official misconduct, procurement fraud, regulatory law violations, bribery 

solicitation, obstruction of justice, and extortion.

9. A total of 73 individuals with direct experience in corruption cases were interviewed 

to provide insider detail into the circumstances of these cases. The individuals 

interviewed were of four general types (former investigators, prosecutors, 

individual who had experience corruption first hand (offenders, victims, insiders, 

undercover, and whistleblowers), and public watchdogs (stakeholders, community 

activists, and researchers). Each interviewee had first-hand exposure to multiple 

cases over the course of their lives and careers, so the 73 interviews discussed 

hundreds of documented corruption cases.

10. The interviews were also analyzed to assess causal explanations for the corrupt 

conduct observed. The qualitative interview analysis used a coding scheme to 

extract each time an interviewee discussed motivations for the corrupt conduct they 

witnessed or experienced. The interviewees discussed offender motivation 97 times 

during the interviews. Results indicated that of the explanations for the first-hand 

corruption witnessed or experienced by the interviewee, 15% offered positivist 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6

explanation, 19% a classical explanation, 28% a structural explanation, and 38% an 

ethical explanation.

11. The responses of the interviewees, based on their experience with actual cases, 

combine to offer empirical insight into the causes of corruption. These insights are 

valuable because they are based on firsthand exposure to serious corruption cases 

that were prosecuted in court. Explanations based on ethical failures were the most 

common, followed by structural, classical, and positivist explanations. 

12. Interviewees with exposure to multiple and separate cases identified different causal 

circumstances in various situations. This finding suggests that different instances of 

corruption may have quite a few different causes. Rather than a global explanation 

of corruption, therefore, the findings here suggest that each of these four 

explanations help to explain the existence of corruption in varying circumstances. 

Prevention approaches must be responsive to this finding, rather than focusing on 

limited, specific anti-corruption approaches. 

Implications for Policy and Practice

1. A contribution of this work lies in the effort to isolate what constitutes corruption in 

practice, how statutes are used to address these underlying corrupt behaviors, and 

what are the underlying behaviors behind corruption that require attention. 

2. The main behaviors underlying public corruption prosecutions and convictions over 

the last 30 years include: fraud or misuse of government funds, bribery, extortion, 

and conspiracy or racketeering. More attention to the circumstances of these cases 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7

and their underlying behaviors may result in fewer corrupt decisions and 

opportunities. 

3. At the state, and especially the local level, public officials serving on government 

boards, councils, in elected office, and some law enforcement positions were often 

part-time, under-trained, and under-supervised. The lack of professionalism in the 

public official’s roles and expectations provided the space to exploit opportunities to 

enrich themselves. Methods to curb such actions include transparency in contract 

award processes, actual budgetary spending practices, and dual training of 

individuals on public capacities to avoid only single individuals authorizing and 

reviewing payments. Also, mandatory ethics training and policies for federal 

programs, state, and local entities are necessary to raise awareness and 

accountability. 

4. Bribery cases always involved an enabler—either a public official or a private citizen 

(or business or corporation) with one making a corrupt overture to the other—with

many cases involving private interests corrupting a public official. In these cases, the 

public official either could not resist the temptation for selfish enrichment, or 

developed a weak rationalization why serving a private interest, rather than the 

public interest, was somehow justified. 

5. Extortion appears most often at the local level, and it is here where corrupt control 

of an agency or jurisdiction might occur most easily. These types of cases may be 

more reflective of the “pay to play” atmosphere seen in some jurisdictions. Better 

protections for whistleblowers may be an avenue to explore to increase disclosure of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8

such activities. 

6. When the corruption cases involved conspiracy or racketeering, small groups of 

corrupt individuals organized either to develop or to protect an ongoing scheme of 

graft. Many of the cases involving local police or corrections officers were of this 

type. These cases are serious due to the ongoing nature of the criminal activity, and 

the complete undermining of the function of government. 

7. The finding of eight distinct corruption behavior types provides insights for training 

inasmuch as this offers a clear focus to the precise nature of corrupt conduct found 

in a large number of cases analyzed, including law enforcement corruption, prison 

corruption, election corruption, government procurement frauds, thefts and fraud 

against government agencies, and efforts to cover-up wrongdoing of various kinds. 

Regardless of the circumstances of the cases, one or more of these eight types of 

corrupt behavior was always found to occur. 

8. Development of an empirical typology of corruption behaviors is important for 

theory and practice. A clear typology helps to identify the specific behaviors that 

underlie prosecutions for serious corruption offenses. Identification of specific 

corrupt behaviors enables investigators to train and focus on particular kinds of 

conduct as they work to build cases. Focusing first on specific forms of conduct, 

rather than on statutes, also enhances the development of cases by prosecutors, and 

will help to support prevention efforts aimed at reducing their incidence over the 

long term by understanding the types of serious conduct that pose the highest risk 

of prosecution. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9

9. There is good reason to believe that many known cases are not prosecuted based on 

resources and likelihood of prosecution success. In some cases, less serious corrupt 

conduct is ignored, or handled outside the criminal process through demotions, 

firings, or civil compensation of illicit gains. Therefore, this study focuses only on 

the most serious cases, found worthy of criminal prosecution, knowing that many 

other instances of corruption occur which was not selected for prosecution.

10. When leaning towards prosecution, the first hurdle is fairness, particularly whether 

the behavior clearly falls outside appropriate ethical bounds or whether it is simply 

“awful but lawful” (Interview A-21). Since federal law has been broadly defined, 

fairness is important to show that public officials clearly knew, or should have 

known, their actions were an abuse of their power. Issues of evidence impact 

whether the jury is likely to believe the witnesses, most whom have credibility 

concerns, e.g., have committed crimes as well, and the type of evidence used. Since 

ABSCAM, most juries want a tape of the action as proof. Additionally, the 

prosecution needs to provide convincing narrative of what happened, because the 

elected and appointed defendants have some intrinsic legitimacy that others do not, 

as some jurors may have elected them to their positions. 

11. Another layer to consider is the likelihood of conviction. Some prosecutors focus 

more on the easy win from low-hanging fruit; such as police stealing from evidence 

seizures or protecting drug shipments; instead of developing cases against higher 

level corruption. The other concern is whether the prosecutions are sufficient to 

deter future corruption. Some prosecutors will focus on top counts and hope those 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10

convictions are sufficient to change the culture (e.g., prosecute the 10 worst police 

officers in a corrupt district or scheme). 

12. The last areas to consider are the cost and interests. Corruption cases come with 

potential high costs from negative performance evaluations (long and sometimes 

unsuccessful cases), extensive resources and potential long-term adverse career 

effects. Since corruption cases often require at least a year or longer to investigate 

and prosecute, some AUSAs may choose not to pursue them because a loss would 

adversely affect their annual review. Some consequences may be experienced later 

in their careers as other public officials may blackball them from future career paths. 

Regarding interests, some prosecutors may be too close to the local area and should 

leave the decisions about prosecution to individuals with more distance. Other

figures may be too close and in denial about the situation in that they can see 

themselves making similar poor decisions without the necessary intent. These 

conflicts of interest may create more barriers to prosecution. Finally, the facts must 

be sufficient to justify a federal case. Many offices have a dollar minimum, usually 

at least $10,000 or have significance for the community (e.g., police officers using 

their positions to coerce individuals for sex). As prosecutors travel this serpentine 

path, they also consider political implications of a corruption prosecution. Yet, 

politics does not appear to be a main reason to prosecute or not. It is simply one of 

many elements considered. 

13. Interviews with former federal prosecutors and investigators, experienced with 

public corruption cases, were used to clarify the reasons for the difficulties in 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

investigating and successfully prosecuting public corruption. There are multiple 

factors considered in public corruption cases regarding legitimacy, difficulties in 

proving corrupt motivations, complex cases, and talented defense representation. 

Investigation and prosecution of public corruption cases require incentivized and 

proactive work to insure integrity in public life, despite a larger number of 

unsuccessful prosecutions than for other crimes.

14. The investigative and prosecutorial effort against public corruption is needed as 

both a deterrent and prevention method. There must be a prioritization of the effort 

at the federal level, because very few corruption prosecutions occur at the state level. 

The vast majority of all public corruption cases are made by federal authorities (with 

targets at the federal, state, and local levels). So active investigations must be 

undertaken to insure that public officials are indeed acting in the public interest.

Summary of Presentations, Publications, and Products from this Project (to date)

This project produced a number of presentations, publications, and a webinar to 

disseminate its findings and implications widely. Below is a listing of these products in 

the order in which they were produced.

1) Presentation: "Making a Bad Problem Worse: Organized Crime's Role in 

Commercializing Corruption." (J.S. Albanese) Arts & Humanities Research Council 

Workshop: Corruption in the Intersections of Legitimate and Illegitimate Enterprise. 

Brussels, Belgium. June 2016. 

2) Presentation: “Distinguishing Corruption in Law and Practice: Empirically 

Separating Conviction Charges from Underlying Behaviors.” (J.S. Albanese, K. 

Artello, L.T. Nguyen) Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Kansas City, MO. 

March 2017. 

3) Presentation: "An Empirical Typology of Corruption: the Underlying Behaviors

Behind Public Corruption Cases." (J.S. Albanese and K. Artello) American Society of

Criminology. Philadelphia. November, 2017. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12

4) Presentation: “Making Anti-Corruption Efforts More Effective: An Empirical Look 

at Why Corruption Persists.” (J. S. Albanese and K. Artello) Annual Meeting of the 

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. New Orleans. February 2018. 

5) Article: Albanese, J.S., K. Artello and L.T. Nguyen. (2018). "Distinguishing 

Corruption in Law and Practice: Empirically Separating Conviction Charges from 

Underlying Behaviors." Public Integrity (journal affiliated with American Society for 

Public Administration’s Section on Ethics and Integrity in Governance) published by 

Routledge. doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1423859

6) Article: Albanese, J.S. and K. Artello. (2018). “Focusing Anti-Corruption Efforts 

More Effectively: An Empirical Look at Offender Motivation -- Positive, Classical, 

Structural and Ethical Approaches" Advances in Applied Sociology, vol.8, No.6,

June. DOI 10.4236/aasoci.2018.86028

7) Article: Artello, K. and J.S. Albanese. (2018). “Trends in US Corruption 

Prosecutions” in A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public 

Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (Springer).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3574-1

8) Chapter: Albanese, J. S. (2018). “When Corruption and Organised Crime Overlap: an 

Empirical Hierarchy of Corrupt Conduct.” In L. Campbell and N. Lord, eds. 

Corruption in Commercial Enterprise: Law, Theory, Practice. (Routledge).

9) Presentation: “Making Public Corruption Cases: Hidden Decisions in Investigations 

and Prosecutions.” (K. Artello and J.S. Albanese) Society for the Study of Social 

Problems. Philadelphia. August 2018. 

10) Manuscript under publication review: “The Behavior of Corruption: An Empirical 

Typology of Public Corruption by Objective and Method.” (J.S. Albanese and K. 

Artello).

11) Manuscript under publication review: “The Calculus of Public Corruption Cases: 

Hidden Decisions in Investigations and Prosecutions.” (K. Artello and J.S. 

Albanese).

12) Presentation planned: "Rising to the Surface: The Way in which Corruption Cases

Come to Light.” (K. Artello and J.S. Albanese) American Society of Criminology. 

Atlanta. November 2018. 

13) Webinar Package: Investigating, Prosecuting, and Preventing Public Corruption.

PowerPoint and script/guide for potential use as training tool for investigators, and 

also for state and local appointed or elected officials regarding the nature, types, and 

circumstances of public corruption cases to improve training, awareness, and 

accountability. (Currently under review by four external reviewers)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.