
Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2 - wallace_f
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675923576/customs-border-and-protection-paid-a-firm-13-6-million-to-hire-recruits-it-hired
======
perfunctory
We should see this for what it really is - hidden unemployment benefit for
people "working" at Accenture. Or hidden basic income, call it whatever you
want. Our level of economic development and accumulated wealth is so great
that without these sorts of "stimulus" the majority of the population would be
unemployed or work just a couple of days per week [0]. And the conspiracy
theorist inside me suspects that the government cannot allow it. With so much
free time at their hands people might get creative and get some strange ideas
and so on.

[0]
[http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf](http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf)

~~~
astura
The most appropriate word I think is "corporate welfare"

------
oftenwrong
Reminds me of this FEMA contracting failure:

>FEMA Contract Called for 30 Million Meals for Puerto Ricans. 50,000 Were
Delivered.

>For this huge task, FEMA tapped Tiffany Brown, an Atlanta entrepreneur with
no experience in large-scale disaster relief and at least five canceled
government contracts in her past. FEMA awarded her $156 million for the job,
and Ms. Brown, who is the sole owner and employee of her company, Tribute
Contracting LLC, set out to find some help.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/us/fema-contract-
puerto-r...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/us/fema-contract-puerto-
rico.html)

~~~
forgot-my-pw
How do people like these not get prosecuted?

~~~
oftenwrong
FEMA pays on delivery. If you fail to fulfil a contract, the FEMA keeps its
money. In this case, that leaves the contractor holding the bag, as they
subcontracted out for all of the work.

Unfortunately, the contractor can dispute the contract termination in a
lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive, so this may force FEMA into a settlement.
This happens all the time with government contracts. People that know the
system can exploit it.

The FEMA contracting officer bears much of the blame for this outcome. The
company had no prior experience in disaster relief, had a track record of
failing to fulfil contracts, and did not have sufficient funds to fulfil the
contract. These are all things that should have been considered before
awarding the contract.

------
pjc50
Worth comparing with
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18679767](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18679767)
, where we actually had something resembling a discussion rather than just
descending into government-is-bad tropes.

There are really three separate questions:

1) Whether the thing is worth doing at all

2) Having decided to do it, is there enough commitment and leadership to
actually doing it properly?

3) Given the desire to do it properly, is that best served by doing it in-
house through a line management system of control, or outsourcing it and
running it through a contract management system of control?

------
sakarisson
Accenture. Why am I not surprised?

~~~
robertsd247
I'm not.

If you want to spend millions and get no deliverables..Accenture is your
answer.

If you want projects late and over budget...Accenture is your answer.

If you want to quickly build your resume with performing little
work...Accenture is your answer.

~~~
jermaustin1
I've worked with Accenture at various companies over the years, they have
always had pretty decent teams, now the amount of overhead provided with a
contract (delivery lead, delivery manager, client manager) is kind of
overkill, but the developers we've brought on from them have been pretty good,
but sticklers for scope and SOWs, even though we were paying hourly and not
fixed.

------
walrus01
One of the reasons why CBP loves the current administration, their new
policies effectively lifted any limits on overtime. For a person with ten
years seniority, if they're bored and want some OT, border patrol guys can sit
around in a pickup truck listening to the radio clocking those 150% wage
hours.

It is not uncommon for a CBP or ICE officer, with OT, to be in the $130k+
salary range now.

And these are in places with relatively low cost of living, compared to a big
city, like Ferry County, WA.

~~~
astura
I don't think it's fair to judge the "average" cost of living of a CBP
officer, all ports of entry are staffed by CBP and the US has ports of entry
all over the county. In fact, some of the busiest ports of entry are at
airports located in major metropolitan areas with high costs of living.

------
schnevets
I'd say this summarizes post-recession America pretty well. A demand for jobs
that no one seems qualified and willing to do, and a bloated paycheck to the
keepers of some "analysts" who scramble to keep doing what doesn't work.

------
pesmhey
The initial payment of ~$2000/recruit sounded reasonable, and then you realize
that the total expenditure was for $40,000/recruit. Even if Accenture Federal
Services delivered, is that price tag an accurate reflection of the true value
of recruiting agents? What part of the recruitment process could warrant such
a high price?

------
jaclaz
As a side-side note:

>Border Patrol jobs with the CBP have been notoriously difficult to fill, in
large part because of the polygraph exam applicants are required to undergo.
The AP reported that 2 out of 3 applicants fail the exam

Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of
applicants are liars?

I mean, even if it is not applicable/valid in court, I believe most federal
and government agencies use them internally, there was something on HN some
time ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683)

So, set aside how accurate it is, a number of people can pass it to get (or
keep) a federal job, so it might be that the "quality" of people attemptng to
enroll to CBP is "lower"?

~~~
ryanmercer
>Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of
applicants are liars?

Polygraphs aren't remotely scientific or even accurate. False positives are
EXTREMELY common, simply being nervous that you're hooked up to a strange
contraption can cause false positives.

Police departments often use them for hiring too, the Indiana State Police
does for example.

~~~
astura
While true, that doesn't explain why the CBP polygraph fail rate is twice that
of other police departments. (The CBP itself is a police department)

[https://apnews.com/7e5bc0d98dd849a88043d8c40a74e56f](https://apnews.com/7e5bc0d98dd849a88043d8c40a74e56f)

~~~
jaclaz
Yep, that is the question/doubt.

I personally believe that the polygraph is a senseless test, still when it is
used to screen a "large" number of people more or less in the same field (LEO,
federal agences, army or similar), it should give a similar number of
positives and negatives.

If it is used only to verify if applicants are prone to "cracking under
theatrical pressure", the result means that applicants for CBP are much more
susceptible to that than most applicants to other police/security or similar
jobs.

------
dalbasal
_" CBP had paid Accenture Federal Services approximately $13.6 million of a
$297 million contract to recruit and hire 7,500 applicants_"

\- $40k per hire

~~~
consp
30-40k hiring bonuses to recruiters are not uncommon. Especially if it is the
only income and competitive in nature.

Doing this under a fixed contract is however.

------
wallace_f
The contract is 297 million for $7,500 recruits, or $39,000 per potential
recruit.

~~~
beager
That’s an insane percentage of the mean annual salary of all these recruits,
astronomically higher than just about any contingency firm.

------
bobjordan
According to this article, the contract amount to be paid to Accenture is USD
$297,000,000 to help the Government hire 7,500 employees. Nearly USD $40,000
USD per hire. Definitely makes me think about going all in on turning pure
Libertarian.

~~~
rchaud
I'm interested to know what part of this story sparked your comment about
Libertarianism?

Was it the use of taxpayer dollars to expand a border force that didn't seem
understaffed to anyone but the Pres?

I ask because the other part, namely government contracting work to the "more
efficient" private sector sounds perfectly in keeping with Libertarian
principles.

~~~
bobjordan
Spending $40,000 USD per hire for a border patrol job, strikes me as
inefficient, regardless of whether or not the private sector or Government is
doing the hiring. But most likely, what sparked my comment about
libertarianism, was simply the fact I'd visited the Libertarian party website
earlier today at [https://www.lp.org/](https://www.lp.org/) and happened to be
thinking about their tagline "Libertarian Party | Minimum Government. Maximum
Freedom." when I read this article.

~~~
rchaud
I agree that $40k/hire cost is absurd. That being said, I hope you'll agree
that actions matter more than words. Plenty of organizations make virtuous
claims in public, and behave differently in private. Political slogans are no
exception. I would encourage you to look at their political representatives'
voting records and ask yourself if they are being consistent with their
professed beliefs.

The absolutism of Libertarian theory doesn't translate well to politics and
economics, as those require building relationships and cutting deals to make
things happen.

------
etxm
Ok, but we’re they _the right_ hires?

------
j_m_b
“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own
money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re
doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own
money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone.
Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very
careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And
if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good
lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I
spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much
it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”

-Milton Friedman

~~~
AbrahamParangi
This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this
quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the
Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks.

If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of
the present.

~~~
zeroname
...implying that the Keynesians are really empathetic and that the Chicago
school folks are cold-hearted technocrats.

That kind of emotionality is what keeps people from making reasonable
decisions on economic policy. It would be _nice_ if the kind of naive
Keynesianism that politicians love to apply _actually worked_. It would be
_nice_ if you could spend yourself out of a recession. Unfortunately,
politicians only like the spending part of the equation, not the savings part.

It's important to note that the Chicago school does build on Keynesian
insights. It's an attempt at improving upon its failures.

~~~
Tyrek
Do you mean the Keynesianism that is commonly applied, also known as 'let's
increase spending on random shit that will benefit by stakeholders, but will
have minimal impact on the overall health of the economy?'. Keynesians haven't
been in a position to dictate fiscal policy (as opposed to monetary policy,
aka the Fed) for at least the past 3 decades.

------
sizzzzlerz
What you have to ask yourself is who, in the Trump crime family, is making
bank off of this.

------
moviuro
Did NPR finally stop tracking its users? It didn't display its usual GDPR
banner!

However, those still doubting should probably use:
[https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=675923576](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=675923576)

------
exabrial
Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money. Huge
discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1
spent. Before than we discussed the astronomically comical cost of
healthcare.gov.

It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer
should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system
just funnels money into contractors pockets.

~~~
tboyd47
Why would private charities be any less corrupt than public ones?

~~~
gtCameron
Because private charities rely on someone making an affirmative choice to give
them money. In theory, if they are corrupt or incompetent enough the flow of
money dries up.

If the government is corrupt or incompetent, people get angry at them and then
... nothing changes. The flow of money isn't stopping, in fact the most likely
outcome is their budgets keep going up year after year.

~~~
Nasrudith
That sounds the exact opposite really - one is answerable to voters and while
the other is capable of acting like a MLM organization that does nothing for
the nominal cause except marketting.

Look at the old institutional system - they had loads of bad PR and were
killed off - there may have been cynical reasons for doing so but it was held
accountable.

Then look at all of the private "reparative therapy" and other opposite of
helpful private organizations still around.

Not that being able to opt out isn't a big advantage but private bad ones can
stick around way longer than public ones.

