FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

I bemoan the good old days of working for an employer who didn't lose money and whose leadership had a clear strategic plan.

You'd have to go back pre-2000 for that. I remember them bragging about raising the headcount cap with no mention of raising revenue. Turned out the idea was to flatten salaries. Eventually the non-mafia and best people left.

Right now, we’re all fighting over the few project scraps left, while leadership moves everyone into 3 year term gigs that basically turn us into a staffing agency... and meanwhile Jason’s friends in GER are out there writing think pieces about how AI is going to end the world.

You want them to make money, but you don't like GER, which fundraised to do the kind of work you're criticizing. You don't like that they brought in some weird Trump guy, presumably to help with the administration. (I don't know anything about him or their plan, but what else could it be?) There isn't a plan for solvency which involves whatever they were doing previously, whether it was five years ago or 25.

You’re mixing up different people and arguments. Multiple people are posting in this thread, and I’m not the one who made some of the earlier comments. Given that, my issue also isn’t that the organization needs to make money. Of course it does. The issue is that people are now competing over a shrinking pool of project work while more staff get pushed into three year term roles that effectively turn the place into a temp agency. GER is just an example. The bigger problem is that RAND’s CEO is inexperienced, and it shows. Fundraising from your personal network is not a strategy by itself. AI by itself is not a strategy either. A lot of decisions Jason (and Jim) made a few years ago are now catching up with them, and without a clear strategy those choices have snowballed.

Saying there is no solvency plan that involves what RAND used to do also doesn’t hold up when most peer organizations are not struggling nearly as badly, aside from MITRE it seems. At this point leadership blaming “the market” looks more like an attempt to avoid owning some very bad decisions they made before Trump returned to office, while now burning through overhead to hire people with White House connections. That is not a strategy, it's pathetic, and frankly it comes off as desperate and reactionary at this point in the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

I bemoan the good old days of working for an employer who didn't lose money and whose leadership had a clear strategic plan.

You'd have to go back pre-2000 for that. I remember them bragging about raising the headcount cap with no mention of raising revenue. Turned out the idea was to flatten salaries. Eventually the non-mafia and best people left.

Right now, we’re all fighting over the few project scraps left, while leadership moves everyone into 3 year term gigs that basically turn us into a staffing agency... and meanwhile Jason’s friends in GER are out there writing think pieces about how AI is going to end the world.

You want them to make money, but you don't like GER, which fundraised to do the kind of work you're criticizing. You don't like that they brought in some weird Trump guy, presumably to help with the administration. (I don't know anything about him or their plan, but what else could it be?) There isn't a plan for solvency which involves whatever they were doing previously, whether it was five years ago or 25.

You’re mixing up different people and arguments. Multiple people are posting in this thread, and I’m not the one who made some of the earlier comments. Given that, my issue also isn’t that the organization needs to make money. Of course it does. The issue is that people are now competing over a shrinking pool of project work while more staff get pushed into three year term roles that effectively turn the place into a temp agency. GER is just an example. The bigger problem is that RAND’s CEO is inexperienced, and it shows. Fundraising from your personal network is not a strategy by itself. AI by itself is not a strategy either. A lot of decisions Jason (and Jim) made a few years ago are now catching up with them, and without a clear strategy those choices have snowballed.

Saying there is no solvency plan that involves what RAND used to do also doesn’t hold up when most peer organizations are not struggling nearly as badly, aside from MITRE it seems. At this point leadership blaming “the market” looks more like an attempt to avoid owning some very bad decisions they made before Trump returned to office, while now burning through overhead to hire people with White House connections. That is not a strategy, it's pathetic, and frankly it comes off as desperate and reactionary at this point in the game.

First of all, I don't know where you're getting the idea that their their peer organizations aren't struggling tremendously. They are. Second, I agree that RAND made many mistakes, but the big ones precede the current leadership and they're not what the RAND-critical people in this thread have pointed out. RAND's FFRDCs are top-heavy, bureaucratic, slow-moving, behind on technology, and they have a business model where they get paid tremendous amounts of money to say obvious things. These are what I hear people at RAND's client organizations complaining about and they're what I experienced as well, the same as with the other FFRDCS and UARCs. I blame the current leadership for deciding this wasn't worth taking on and for focusing on their own priorities instead. But there was no solution that would made RAND researchers happy and the organization solvent. And there shouldn't be, because these aren't effective organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

I bemoan the good old days of working for an employer who didn't lose money and whose leadership had a clear strategic plan.

You'd have to go back pre-2000 for that. I remember them bragging about raising the headcount cap with no mention of raising revenue. Turned out the idea was to flatten salaries. Eventually the non-mafia and best people left.

Right now, we’re all fighting over the few project scraps left, while leadership moves everyone into 3 year term gigs that basically turn us into a staffing agency... and meanwhile Jason’s friends in GER are out there writing think pieces about how AI is going to end the world.

You want them to make money, but you don't like GER, which fundraised to do the kind of work you're criticizing. You don't like that they brought in some weird Trump guy, presumably to help with the administration. (I don't know anything about him or their plan, but what else could it be?) There isn't a plan for solvency which involves whatever they were doing previously, whether it was five years ago or 25.

You’re mixing up different people and arguments. Multiple people are posting in this thread, and I’m not the one who made some of the earlier comments. Given that, my issue also isn’t that the organization needs to make money. Of course it does. The issue is that people are now competing over a shrinking pool of project work while more staff get pushed into three year term roles that effectively turn the place into a temp agency. GER is just an example. The bigger problem is that RAND’s CEO is inexperienced, and it shows. Fundraising from your personal network is not a strategy by itself. AI by itself is not a strategy either. A lot of decisions Jason (and Jim) made a few years ago are now catching up with them, and without a clear strategy those choices have snowballed.

Saying there is no solvency plan that involves what RAND used to do also doesn’t hold up when most peer organizations are not struggling nearly as badly, aside from MITRE it seems. At this point leadership blaming “the market” looks more like an attempt to avoid owning some very bad decisions they made before Trump returned to office, while now burning through overhead to hire people with White House connections. That is not a strategy, it's pathetic, and frankly it comes off as desperate and reactionary at this point in the game.

First of all, I don't know where you're getting the idea that their their peer organizations aren't struggling tremendously. They are. Second, I agree that RAND made many mistakes, but the big ones precede the current leadership and they're not what the RAND-critical people in this thread have pointed out. RAND's FFRDCs are top-heavy, bureaucratic, slow-moving, behind on technology, and they have a business model where they get paid tremendous amounts of money to say obvious things. These are what I hear people at RAND's client organizations complaining about and they're what I experienced as well, the same as with the other FFRDCS and UARCs. I blame the current leadership for deciding this wasn't worth taking on and for focusing on their own priorities instead. But there was no solution that would made RAND researchers happy and the organization solvent. And there shouldn't be, because these aren't effective organizations.

I work at a peer organization and this seems overblown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

I bemoan the good old days of working for an employer who didn't lose money and whose leadership had a clear strategic plan.

You'd have to go back pre-2000 for that. I remember them bragging about raising the headcount cap with no mention of raising revenue. Turned out the idea was to flatten salaries. Eventually the non-mafia and best people left.

Right now, we’re all fighting over the few project scraps left, while leadership moves everyone into 3 year term gigs that basically turn us into a staffing agency... and meanwhile Jason’s friends in GER are out there writing think pieces about how AI is going to end the world.

You want them to make money, but you don't like GER, which fundraised to do the kind of work you're criticizing. You don't like that they brought in some weird Trump guy, presumably to help with the administration. (I don't know anything about him or their plan, but what else could it be?) There isn't a plan for solvency which involves whatever they were doing previously, whether it was five years ago or 25.

You’re mixing up different people and arguments. Multiple people are posting in this thread, and I’m not the one who made some of the earlier comments. Given that, my issue also isn’t that the organization needs to make money. Of course it does. The issue is that people are now competing over a shrinking pool of project work while more staff get pushed into three year term roles that effectively turn the place into a temp agency. GER is just an example. The bigger problem is that RAND’s CEO is inexperienced, and it shows. Fundraising from your personal network is not a strategy by itself. AI by itself is not a strategy either. A lot of decisions Jason (and Jim) made a few years ago are now catching up with them, and without a clear strategy those choices have snowballed.

Saying there is no solvency plan that involves what RAND used to do also doesn’t hold up when most peer organizations are not struggling nearly as badly, aside from MITRE it seems. At this point leadership blaming “the market” looks more like an attempt to avoid owning some very bad decisions they made before Trump returned to office, while now burning through overhead to hire people with White House connections. That is not a strategy, it's pathetic, and frankly it comes off as desperate and reactionary at this point in the game.

First of all, I don't know where you're getting the idea that their their peer organizations aren't struggling tremendously. They are. Second, I agree that RAND made many mistakes, but the big ones precede the current leadership and they're not what the RAND-critical people in this thread have pointed out. RAND's FFRDCs are top-heavy, bureaucratic, slow-moving, behind on technology, and they have a business model where they get paid tremendous amounts of money to say obvious things. These are what I hear people at RAND's client organizations complaining about and they're what I experienced as well, the same as with the other FFRDCS and UARCs. I blame the current leadership for deciding this wasn't worth taking on and for focusing on their own priorities instead. But there was no solution that would made RAND researchers happy and the organization solvent. And there shouldn't be, because these aren't effective organizations.

I’m sure you hear people say a lot of things, but anecdotes aren’t data. RAND’s revenue started declining in 2024, about a year after Jason became CEO, and it’s fallen sharply since. Before Jason RAND was regularly hitting the ceiling on its FFRDC contracts. The numbers don’t seem to support your story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole Hegseth vs Anthropic is bad.

This is IDA's fault. they were involved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RAND is fine. Stop with the histrionics.

RAND isn't brining in the monthly projects needed to sustain staff even after the October RIFs. The trickle of layoffs is starting again and I expect another RIF.

And yes, I know the point of projects isn't to sustain staff but to inform policy and processes, but the business needs the revenue to pay staff and those left in RAND know even the FFRDC work is far below even revised projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is fine. Stop with the histrionics.

RAND isn't brining in the monthly projects needed to sustain staff even after the October RIFs. The trickle of layoffs is starting again and I expect another RIF.

And yes, I know the point of projects isn't to sustain staff but to inform policy and processes, but the business needs the revenue to pay staff and those left in RAND know even the FFRDC work is far below even revised projections.

There is always GER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is fine. Stop with the histrionics.

RAND isn't brining in the monthly projects needed to sustain staff even after the October RIFs. The trickle of layoffs is starting again and I expect another RIF.

And yes, I know the point of projects isn't to sustain staff but to inform policy and processes, but the business needs the revenue to pay staff and those left in RAND know even the FFRDC work is far below even revised projections.

how’s ndri doing? that was always the moneymaker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is fine. Stop with the histrionics.

RAND isn't bringing in the monthly projects needed to sustain staff even after the October RIFs. The trickle of layoffs is starting again and I expect another RIF.

And yes, I know the point of projects isn't to sustain staff but to inform policy and processes, but the business needs the revenue to pay staff and those left in RAND know even the FFRDC work is far below even revised projections.

There is always GER.

Not sure if that's a joke or sarcasm, but GER isn't bringing in any funding that is replacing other parts of RAND. I say this as a soon to be former RANDite (knocks on wood), but GER is just RAND International with new branding and talk about AI. It might save a few analysts and researchers, but there's going to be another RIF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is fine. Stop with the histrionics.

RAND isn't brining in the monthly projects needed to sustain staff even after the October RIFs. The trickle of layoffs is starting again and I expect another RIF.

And yes, I know the point of projects isn't to sustain staff but to inform policy and processes, but the business needs the revenue to pay staff and those left in RAND know even the FFRDC work is far below even revised projections.

how’s ndri doing? that was always the moneymaker

Big struggle bus as well. And Barry Pavel just left (or was pushed out) after just about 3 years. It's not that RAND isn't value-add, it's that even with good people doing business development and proposing potential projects, DoD officials just aren't interested. Plus there seems to be a new DOGE review that just adds bureaucracy to the process. If anyone is in RAND, either get yourself any coverage anywhere or start networking now. RAND and its FFRDCs will survive the next few years, but it'll be much smaller on the other side.

[Anonymous]

Jason completely ignored the FFRDCs and then hired friends who were openly antagonistic toward them and the people working inside them. It almost feels like he let this crisis happen so he could justify pushing through his radical changes for RAND Next, or whatever he is calling it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jason completely ignored the FFRDCs and then hired friends who were openly antagonistic toward them and the people working inside them. It almost feels like he let this crisis happen so he could justify pushing through his radical changes for RAND Next, or whatever he is calling it now.

Bruh, he hasn’t hired tons of friends of partisans and doesn’t have some anti-ffrdc agenda. Just leave RAND…if you haven’t already been laid off. “Radical changes.” Lol

[Anonymous]

A posting on the Political Discussion https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/330/1316799.pageDOD rules of engagement discusses


https://www.salon.com/2026/03/11/the-us-had-a-blueprint-to-avoid-civilian-war-casualties-trump-officials-scrapped-it-partner/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A posting on the Political Discussion https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/330/1316799.pageDOD rules of engagement discusses


https://www.salon.com/2026/03/11/the-us-had-a-blueprint-to-avoid-civilian-war-casualties-trump-officials-scrapped-it-partner/

Great report cited in this article. It was released under the previous CEO. Only a handful of the authors are still there; the rest have either left or were RIF’d.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason completely ignored the FFRDCs and then hired friends who were openly antagonistic toward them and the people working inside them. It almost feels like he let this crisis happen so he could justify pushing through his radical changes for RAND Next, or whatever he is calling it now.

Bruh, he hasn’t hired tons of friends of partisans and doesn’t have some anti-ffrdc agenda. Just leave RAND…if you haven’t already been laid off. “Radical changes.” Lol

Thanks, bruh.