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?