The several comparisons between/among STEM robotics programs and sort-of similar arts or athletics programs brought this "question" to mind.
Painting with a very broad brush...
Are the arts and athletics programs sustained by their communities (time, $ and votes); while the robotics programs are sustained by grants and individuals?
If the answer is yes, and if this dichotomy is at the root of many of the symptoms we have listed in this thread, then I think attending to the root cause of our "problems", and having a realistic expectation for the time, $ and effort necessary to affect changes, will lead to strategies for investing that time and energy wisely in sustainable projects.
Let's try an analogy
Sowing expensive seeds in thin or rocky soil, in an attempt to quickly feed the world is a waste of scarce resources. Instead, sowing those seeds in decent soil and living off the yield while you simultaneously get the other soil ready to produce crops is a way to maximize long-term yields. Prep'ing that currently poor soil might take 50 years, or it might take 50 days.
If the answer is that it will take 50 years, then trying to accomplish it in 50 days or 50 months is a good way to create fragile houses of cards, and create a lot of heartburn, confusion and waste.
Also, if in the agriculture analogy the current answer is 50 years, trying experiments to see if you can find a way to cut that time down to 5 years is a smart investment; but until the experiments pay off, don't gamble unwisely using blind luck as a guide.
If pouring externally supplied fertilizer on the poor soil is one way to (appear to) speed things up, pay careful attention to whether that fertilizer might some day run out.
Perhaps starting an FRC team in a "new" location isn't the first step to creating a sustainable STEM inspiration program. Maybe it is one of the last???
Blake