PNW introducing new funding model
 

Looks like this was announced back in June. I've tried searching, but haven't found any mention of it here. Has this already been discussed somewhere on CD?

The PNW district announced some upcoming changes for the 2016 season on their website. (It's also linked from the PNW district section of the FRC payment terms page at usfirst.org.) EDIT: also here and here (nicer webpage versions).

In short, WashingtonFIRST (on behalf of PNW) is fronting all expenses of teams and events in the district to USFIRST, while teams instead make their payments to WashingtonFIRST (except payments for regionals outside the district and the FIRST championship). This leaves the PNW district free to structure the fees as they like; they are choosing to bill teams for the entirety of PNW expenses, dividing their costs evenly among the teams. They estimate each team's fee will be $10,652. This allows them to direct their fundraising toward directly supporting teams in the form of grants to bring down this cost, to their goal of $5000-$6800. Teams' past fundraising efforts would continue to cover this remainder.

The announcement itself is a great read. They talk about transparency, reducing costs, and reducing competition between PNW and teams for donor support. I find it striking how they've evenly distributed the cost, so that everyone is paying for everyone's events (not just DCMP attendees paying for DCMP, 3rd event attendees paying for 3rd events, etc.) as well as the cost of PNW supporting the program (including the bill from USFIRST for supporting PNW and its teams).

It's unclear what this means for interdistrict play, but that isn't a great option in the isolated PNW district, compared to the numerous adjacent districts in the eastern US.

Please discuss.

(Or redirect me to somewhere this is already being discussed?)

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Who/what decides who gets to compete at a third, or even fourth district event, other than registration time? At a flat rate, I don't see why teams wouldn't try and compete more, but its obivous that not every team can go to more than 2 events.

Seems kind of unfair to teams that only end up being able to compete at 2 events.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

I see your point, but the events are planned so there are at least two spots for every team. Inevitably, there are going to be a few extra spots. As far as I know, extra teams filing these spots incurs no additional costs for the district. Since PNW is changing philosophies from the traditional "pay to attend each event" to "cover the program expenses", it seems unnecessary to charge a registration fee for additional plays.

I can see a few different approaches to ensuring fair distribution of the extra plays:

• None, whoever clicks first gets it
• A random lottery for spots
• A lottery based on years since previous third play (similar to CMP waitlist)

Additionally, I would imagine there'd be a gap between third and fourth play registration opening.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Just to clarify. all teams pay a share of the DCMP costs, regardless if they actually qualify for the event?

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Majorly jealous that Districts seem to be getting cheaper and cheaper, while regionals are staying just as expensive as ever...

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Props to the PNW for really taking on the issue of funding for teams in that district. I can see a future where in a really proactive district, teams there have their fees reduced to the 2-3 thousand dollar range.

(NY Districts soon plz)

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

How is it cheaper?

It should be noted (and they are careful to make this clear in the announcement) that there are NO changes in overall costs or overall reg fees, they're just reorganizing them. USFIRST is lumping all DCMP fees into one. PNW is splitting all fees PLUS its own operating costs among teams. With just that, teams that attend DCMP see their price tag go down, but teams that don't see theirs go up (to the same value for all teams), so it washes out. It gets more expensive on average (to cover PNW's costs).

PNW is planning for more funding (probably already secured or repurposed) to bring it back down to the old base rate of $5000. Effectively funding to cover everyone's old DCMP fees and their own costs. But unless they provide this, everyone pays $6800 (they predict, on average). More expensive.

But the model is that everyone always gets billed the same and everyone sees the full cost of the program. Then PNW's grants take effect and you'll probably pay less than full price. And the goal is that in the future this funding can be found more easily due to the new model and program cost can indeed get cheaper and cheaper.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

True, I forgot to consider teams that don't go to DCMP. These teams are certainly saving a large amount compared to previous years. Hopefully, in the future, even teams that don't go to DCMP see lower fees as well. :]

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

If you play 2 district events and no championship it would cost 6,800 while 2 regional events would cost 9,000

If you add in a DCMP at the same cost of 6,800 compared to the cost of 3 regional events would be 13,000.

That also excludes travel cost which overall would be less for districts because of the length of events and potentially distance to an event.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Agreed. I had meant that this step does not in itself make districts even LESS expensive. Other districts also have that same advantage (on average, in fact a little better perhaps) over regional teams, but different teams get billed different amounts.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

So paying First directly:

1) rookies no District champs $6000
2) Veteran no district champs $5000
3) Rookies district champs & district $10,000
4) Veterans district champs & district $9,000

PWN everybody: $10,652 maybe reduced later by some undetermined amount.

So the PWN model is veteran team are subsidizing rookies. The teams not going to district champs are subsiding those that do, by a lot. I can see how that makes budgeting & planning for PWN organizers. I don't see it making the events less expensive for the teams. Seems like common core math. YMMV

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

That $10,652 is without any fundraising by FIRSTWA. Before, fundraising got put into running events before it got sent to teams. Now, since the cost to run the entire district is put on the teams, any fundraising FIRSTWA does is directly used to lower the cost teams have to pay. That number will for sure go do, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it drop below $7000. I honestly think its easier for teams to raise a straight $7000 at the beginning of the season, and know if they make it into DChamps they don't have to worry about coming up with the $4000 in days.

There are many teams that are not able to make it to DChamps specifically for that reason. If their registration goes up a little, but they know they will not have to pay any more to go to DChamps, I think most teams would be ok with that.

In addition, I know FIRSTWA had teams pay an extra $3000 last year for registration, and that didn't include DChamps. That was just to pay the bills for running the districts. So if this comes out cheeper, and includes DChamps in the cost, I think its better for everyone.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

One of the stated reasons for the change has been that it's less confusing for sponsors to be approached by and donate to a single "FIRST"-affiliated entity rather than for them to understand the different tiers of costs associated with the FIRST program -- HQ, regional- and district-costs, and team costs.

I dislike this approach and worry about problems it may cause for teams in the future. It makes it far more difficult for FIRST-affiliated programs to approach large sponsors for support of non-FIRST activities, for one, since they may perceive that they're already giving to the overseeing body. It also means that the relationship with large sponsors may be more centralized, for lack of a better word, denying teams the opportunity to develop relationships with smaller, more friendly divisions that are nearer to their site; relationships that may better weather poorer economic climates.

Edit:

The end result of this is exactly the same. Unless the amount of money in the system -- teams and FIRSTWA collectively -- changes, the costs to teams won't change either. The only thing that changes is the relationship the teams have with the sponsors.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Added some bolding for emphasis.

The change in cost to the teams here is solely a function of how much money the PNW FIRST organization can raise. I've put it in a chart to make it easier to see.



Going with figures quoted in the linked documents, all PNW teams will be paying between $5000 and $6800. For this money some will get two events, while some will get two events and a District Championship. As such if they only hit the high end target price, teams who don't attend the District Championship will be paying a bit more, while the teams who do attend will be saving a lot. If they hit their low end target price, then everyone is in an equal or better position than they were last season.

Regardless, I really admire the initiative and transparency being shown by the PNW folks here. Obviously this is a big change that teams will have varied reactions to based on the numbers shown above. But it's very nice to see the rationale and the numbers behind the change. I wish them good luck on their fundraising in hopes of seeing a cost savings for all teams in the district. This is model that may prove to be very valuable to the rest of us in the long run.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

I'm excited to see something new being tried, and really hope that costs for teams (and for the organizers) will go down.

I am curious as to how those cost are expected to go down. As Karthik said, the change in price for teams is directly related to how much PNW can fund raise. In the previous model though, I assume that PNW would fund raise for the events and then give extra funds directly to teams. Now instead of frund-raised money going to the event, teams money goes to the event and then PNW "gives" money to teams (via lowering the cost of entry).

My point is, it seems like the same money is transacting around, just on different sides. I'm not sure where any money will be saved in this model. The events will cost the same, PNW will pay the same registration cost that it's teams usually pay, and fund raised money will still enter PNW. There has to be an amount of money that leaves this equation in order for cost to truly decrease right?

I'm not well versed in financial matters so I hope my point is clear. What I'm getting at is that if the total money in / out of the old model is the same as the total money in / out of the new model, then won't there be a net change of 0?

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

If I'm not mistaken the actual value in this comes from the elimination in competition between PNW and teams (and reduction between teams) for that fundraising money correct? By eliminating that competition (and reducing the competition between teams) PNW hopes to get more total funds from sponsors. So for most teams to see a reduction in cost, PNW is going to have to succeed in pulling in more money from those sponsors?

Reducing the competition will also likely mean that the disparity in amount raised by different teams will likely decrease correct? As sponsor money shifts from teams to PNW (which I'm only assuming will happen) then individual team funding will drop (but this will be okay because event costs will also drop).

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

The net change of total expenditure is 0 (except I'm unsure as to what the $256,000 'program fee' to FIRST is), but the cost to teams is (theoretically) less.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

As I understand it, the program fee is a payment to FIRST that, effectively, covers losses to FIRST because money from teams is going directly to the district governing body rather than to HQ. It's not unlike a licensing fee.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

That's the thing though, if the cost to teams is dropping then the cost to someone else has to increase right?. Who is paying more in this model?

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

So, sponsors can still earmark money for specific teams/regions/classifications of teams?

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

It's probably not a coincidence that the $256,000 program fee to FIRST is equal to 64*4000, which is the number of teams that compete at the PNW Championship times the event registration fee.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Karthik is correct. This is not a coincidence: "We are have a new $256,000 fee that is due to USFIRST as our program fee. This new program fee is going to replace the registration fees for the PNW District Championship. The good news for all of our teams is that no additional fees are due when you make it to the District championship. That has become an expense item in the WFR budget and is now part of team participation fee. It adds $1,684 for each of our 152 existing teams. If we grow or shrink teams, the $256K is still a fixed expense that we will owe to USFIRST."


It seems that they are banking on the idea that this new system will be easier for the sponsors to understand so they will be more willing to give out more money (opposed to be being confused about the differences between sponsoring USFIRST, WFR, PNW, specific events...).

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

I have no inside information on how they plan to do this so your guess is as good as mine, but if I was doing this I might do something akin to the way that the NFL does its waiver wire:

1) Everyone is assigned an initial priority. For argument's sake, let's assume that it's largest team number first.
2) Each team submits an ordered list of which (if any) extra events they would want to go to.
3) Choose the team with the highest priority.
4) See if there are any events with slots left that the team was interested in going to.
5a) If there are then sign them up for the event they wanted the most, then move the team to the back of the priority list. Then go to step 3.
5b) If there were not any events with free slots that the team wanted to go to then choose the next highest priority team and go to step 4. If there is not a next highest priority team then go to step 6.
6) Inform teams of new event signups. Go to step 2 for the next round until it's not possible to sign any more teams up.
7) Save resulting priority list for next year.

A simple lottery would be somewhat problematic: Different slots are worth very different amounts to different teams. It takes longer to get to Spokane (home of the West Valley event) from Seattle than it would take to make a journey visiting every MAR district event! Similarly, telling a team from eastern Washington that they 'won' the option to go to a third event but that it was a slot in Philomath (southernmost and westernmost in the PNW) would probably not make them very happy.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

I think it's a good change. There is a lot of obfuscation in the traditional FIRST funding model, for both the donors and the participants. In my experience most people don't know that a relatively small fraction of their registration fee goes to running the district, and the district doesn't even get a cut of the DCMP fee. This change makes this fact more obvious to a larger group of people.

I still wouldn't mind paying for a third district event. At $1000 a third district is far and away the best value in FIRST.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Seems like the ELI5 version of this is something like this: PNW wants to make the DCMP registration fee not be a sudden burden on financially strapped teams and simplify the registration process for teams, while also giving sponsors an additional concrete cost for them to cover, while also fulfilling the obligation it has to USFIRST.

If I recall correctly, FiM wanted the DCMP to be free back in 08-09 and FIRST wouldn't allow it. Now here we are in 2015 and the PNW decided to find a different way around getting the DCMP money to FIRST. Hopefully it's better for everyone.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

What did the registration fee for each team end up as?

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

I believe the fee after grants (what the team has to come up with on its own) will vary on an individual team basis, depending on what grants a particular team has received. But I think their goal is that no one is left at more than $7000.

Since it's likely not a single number, I doubt it will get published. Maybe some teams can share the situation they're in, though it may be too soon for that.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

In order to reduce the amount of money that a given team needs to pay to FIRSTWA they have to apply for a FIRST WA grant. This grant application process just opened a couple of days ago and no one will know what their individual responsibility will be. We were told to have a PO for $10,642 ready to go at a webinar 2 weeks ago. None of us know what we are supposed to pay as of yet.

This is also complicated by another grant from OSPI (Washington Office of the Superintendent of Instruction) which teams have also had to apply for. This is money from the legislature for FIRST programs. Unlike previous years, where this money came to teams directly and could be spent on whatever the team had budgeted in the grant, evidently now this money will affect how much your individual team will be charged for registration. In effect this means that if you got a big OSPI grant, you will be expected to pay more to FIRST WA with the extra amount coming from this grant. OSPI grants for rookie teams are targeted at $12,000 with veteran teams eligible for up to $7000. This initially sounded great until we found out that this increase in grants will just be tacked onto our registration fees.

In the end it is a good plan... it's just difficult to say now exactly what any of us will end up paying.

Everyone needs to remember that what PNW is trying to do is to figure out what it costs to do everything... including the costs of Districts and District championship and divide that cost among teams.

The reasoning is that financial supporters of FIRST would rather give money to teams than to some nebulous "District Cost" or "Championship Cost"

In this way teams all have their share in the costs of the District expenses including the cost to put on events, the cost of paid employees, and the building and storage costs. Businesses that contribute have their money given to teams as "grants" to cover the team's share.

Many teams don't realize that for Regionals, regional committees have to come up with all of the costs of the regional... registration money does not go towards those costs. FIRST does provide some of the amenities,, (field, FTA, etc) but the bulk of the costs have to be raised locally by those regional committees....

FIRSTWA is attempting to give an accounting of costs so teams see what is going on and what is being spent on teams. I think we all have been looking for this kind of transparency. It may take some time for it all to shake out but at least teams have most of the full story.

Of course the rest of the story is where does the "licensing fee" or whatever they call it, that goes to FIRST go? The District can't help with that transparency.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

The major effect of this change is to shift risk from FIRST WA's budget to the teams. I have not made up my mind on whether this is good or bad.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Discussions on final invoicing has popped up today on the PNW FIRST Robotics Facebook page, for those interested.

Nothing really new, just some clarifications for concerned parties.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

We just received our bill from FIRST WA
$10,866.00 PNW FRC District participation fee
-$5,000.00 PNW Grant
-$5,200.00 Boeing mentor grant ( can only be used for registration)
- $661.00 Washington FIRST Robotics grant
0 Balance Due

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Did you previously have a $5 credit?

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

Looks like all PNW teams paid between $6800 and $0 for two districts and (pending qualification) a DCMP.

That's a deal if I've ever seen one.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

That's a sweet deal....

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

In the past, teams that did a better job of fundraising had a huge advantage over other teams. Teams that were able to go to 2 or 3 regional events were able to improve with practice, plus gain the extra un-bagged robot time.

There was no way to compete with teams that got an extra 3 to 6 days to drive and work on their bot.

Now with districts we closer to a level playing field. Each team gets to pick 2 events. Their performance (or awards) at these events determines who goes to the regional event. A team's third play performance has no affect on qualifying for a regional event.

Dave

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

You realize that teams still have the option to go play elsewhere, right?

Not only are teams not prohibitted from going to out of district events but it actually does happen in practice. A PNW team qualified for the chamionship by winning the engineering inspiration award at the Hawaii regional last year.

I don't begrudge 2522 for going and winning awards, and they are a team that I have enjoyed competing with, but there are some ways in which the current system is actually less fair than before. Now 2522 is a team that would have qualified for the championship regardless of the regional that they went to, but image if they weren't:

Their chamionship slot counts toward the PNW team quota which would mean that they would have displaced some other team. And that displaced team would have been denied a slot at chamionship because a team that they may not have ever gotten the chance to compete against won an award at some unrelated regional.

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

If you look at the brief history of district system teams that
1) go to regionals
2) qualify for champs at that regional
3) would likely not qualify for champs at that regional
you would find enough teams to count on one hand that may be "stealing" slots. As regionals likely take place before a hypothetical team's DCMP, their performance at the event or whether or not they attended the event can be easily chalked up to an exercise in earning the requisite points to be a superfluous endeavor.

Most of these perceived stolen slots come out of district system teams earning regional culture changing awards, a practice no longer allowed as of 2017 (for better or for worse).

Re: PNW introducing new funding model
 

I agree that this problem with districts is mostly hypothetical. At the moment the cutoff for champs is lenient enough that most teams who would do well at the championship do get in. If slots were harder to come by this would have the potential to matter more.

On the other hand, going back to DaveL's point: more play time does not always equal success. Ask me how I know that it's possible to win multiple events and be finalist in a third without making the championship. :P