What Does "Our Team Really Needs Funding" Mean To You?

[JaneYoung]

I've been watching some recent and current threads regarding funding for teams and I've been scratching my head at some of the posts, wondering if I'm losing my sense of what team needs are now.

For several years, I've been told, personally, that our team is one of the 'haves' in our area vs. one of the 'have nots'. It's taken me a few years to understand what that means but after talking with people in other regions and areas of Texas, I've grasped a basic understanding of what I think it must mean. 418 works very hard in areas of fundraising and soliciting/retaining sponsors. Our stability has not occurred overnight; I can remember years when we were piecing it together for participating in 1 competition. What really has helped us is our Parents' Association and its 501(c)3 status. The team and the Parents' Association work very hard year-round to raise funds for the team expenses and to insure our sustainability as much as we can. That said, when I am told that we are one of the 'have' teams, I still have a reaction of, how can that be? We have what we have because we have worked hard for it - does that make us a 'have' team?

When talking with mentors and area leaders, I think what I've begun to understand is how teams can be divided into a 'have' and 'have not' status. If a team has put together enough money for 1 registration fee to attend and compete at 1 competition during the season, that is a 'have' team. The key figure is 1 - not 2 or 3 or 4 or 5; it is 1. There have been teams who have really struggled for the registration for 1 event or for a facility to build in or with changes in the team leadership or with unforeseen circumstances that have or could have prevented them from accomplishing the goal of competing in 1 event during a season. Those teams would be considered 'have nots'.

Looking at the district events, I realize that I am falling behind now. The teams who qualify to compete at those events - have access to several opportunities to compete during the season. The teams who do not have access to the district plan still purchase their participation in 1 or more regional events. This is the area I'm thinking about. If a team has managed to fund 1 regional event registration fee and is seeking help/support in order to attend more than that - are they considered a 'have not'?

I've talked about this with area leaders and lead mentors in our region and other regions for several years, including the time that I was a FIRST Senior Mentor. Have I fallen behind the times? If so, help me catch up. I don't want to feel dispassionate or cynical when teams are struggling to attend a 2nd or 3rd event. 418 has learned how important it is to have that opportunity and we have worked hard to continue to achieve that goal. At the same time, I would not consider the need of attending a second event to be the same need of getting the funds and resources to attend 1 event.

Thanks for any input,
Jane

[Tom Ore]

Interesting question you raise. Reading between the lines, I get the impression that "have" and "want" are getting a bit blurred here. Hard work will turn "want" into "have".

[JaneYoung]

I really don't know and I'm also wondering what that pressure is like on groups and organizations that help fund teams and support their efforts. It's fine with me if there are strict guidelines in place but:

a. do those guidelines apply across the board or are there variables?
b. who knows the guidelines and availabilities of funding and support?
c. what teams automatically think, oh - we don't qualify - we aren't going to ask or apply or submit a request and don't?

Why am I thinking about this? Because I think there will continue to be a burgeoning demand placed on those who support the FRC program and the teams and I also think there is a continued opportunity for teams to misunderstand and even misrepresent true need.

Jane

[BJC]

Personally, I have always thought of it like this:

HAVE NOTs: Teams that have trouble finding the money to compete at all.

Have Nots: Teams that have enough money to compete once but not enought for a second time.

Haves: Teams that have the money to go to more than one compitition.

HAVEs: Teams that not only have the money to go to more than one compitition but also have access to other expensive fabrication methods and extra nicities (water jeting, CNCing, powercoating, ionizing, ect.

It should be noted that the difference between all of these really comes down to the effort teams put in and the difference between Have and Have Not is really one big sponser (like NASA) away.

One other thing I should note, The biggest difference I can see between the "Have" side and the "Have Not" side is that the Haves all have sponsers (almost always more than one). If they need more money they go and pitch their team to a potential sponser. The Have Nots seem to rely more on team fund raisers. This is why they are where they are on the spectrum. They basically have to start from scratch moniarily every year as opposed to Haves which have a set income. This allows Have teams to concern themselves with being competitive as opposed to Have nots who must put all their efforts into simply being able to compete.

My 2 cents

[davidthefat]

Now, my mentor was and still is very hesitant about fundraising at our school mostly due to ASB. Our ASB has to accept our request to fundraise and they pocket some of the money (not sure on percentages). For that sole reason, he does not want to fundraise because he does not want money getting mixed in with the ASB's. We are currently at a situation that we have enough for 1 regional, but not yet for the 2nd we always wanted. So we have 2 choices, raise barely enough money for the 2nd regional and have minimal amount of money or just go to one and have a lot for the robot.

I heard last year my mentor literally went up to our (now retired) principal and asked for $5000 just in case we don't get enough money to even sign up. Fortunately, he did find that much money and just handed back her the money.


I really suggested some ideas to fund raise with, but apparently my mentor really hates asking for money or even dealing with money (I totally understand him, I am like that too...) So we never get to do them. Some how he manages to get 5k and extra every year though...

In all honesty, I do not understand why FIRST needs all this money from individual teams. How much does it to actually run an individual regional?

[mattiej]

I know exactly what you mean. Our team was having a hard time this year on raising funds, and it was only through a generous donation by a parent that we are able to compete this year.
One thing I think that could help (which I think they have) is ways for companies to donate to a team through FIRST itself. We had been turned down multiple times by companies in our areas because they would not donate to a Booster club, which is where our funds are "stored". Or maybe even if the regional FIRST associations would do that sort of service. I know the Texas FIRST just recently got 501(c)3 status. Just a thought.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

In all honesty, I do not understand why FIRST needs all this money from individual teams. How much does it to actually run an individual regional?

Back when I started, a quarter-million was the basic price per regional. This included such things as the team social, venue costs, field, A/V, and the like. It may have gone down a bit, but some things have been trimmed--team socials are now put together by teams, if there is one; A/V is slimmed down, regionals try to minimize costs.

Believe it or not, very little of team registration if any goes to the regional. It goes to overhead costs, KOP costs, field building and transport, robot shipping over the donation, and things of that nature.

To the original (title) question, I think the basic answer is something like this:
"We do not have enough money to do what we want to do, therefore we need more." Note: "Need" in that sentence should really be "want".

With regards to "have" and "have-not" teams, "have" teams are the ones with the resources to do what they want to do--multiple regionals, waterjetting, practice robot, stuff like that. "Have-not" teams can do an event or two, but they'll do it with a kitbot chassis and PVC and stuff like that, no practice robot or anything.

The best way to turn your resident "have-not" team into a "have" team is to get the word out to the community that you are looking into doing X, or are looking for Y resource, and talk to places that can help you.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

I heard last year my mentor literally went up to our (now retired) principal and asked for $5000 just in case we don't get enough money to even sign up. Fortunately, he did find that much money and just handed back her the money.


I really suggested some ideas to fund raise with, but apparently my mentor really hates asking for money or even dealing with money (I totally understand him, I am like that too...) So we never get to do them. Some how he manages to get 5k and extra every year though...

added emphasis mine

Why does your team depend solely on your one mentor do get all the money? Many hands make the work light.
The generic "fundraiser" (selling overpriced candy bars, cheeses and meats) is NOT the only way to generate capital. Sponsorships are a renewable resource; perhaps the students could start a "pay to play" campaign (on our team each student must raise at least $250 to be able to travel - with 20 students, this covers our registration).
Gaining sponsorships is NOT merely walking around the mall, talking to store managers with your hand out. Invite people to your shop - start with relatives, friends, neighbors, people who have heard you talk about the team and know what it means to you personally. Invite people to a competition - most regionals provide a VIP program for current and prospective sponsors. You'll be surprised what happens with a soft sell.

Back to the topic at hand, it struck me a couple days ago that the have/have not perception is completely outside the team. Our team in 2010 was able to go to 4 FRC competitions - BMR, DC, IRI, CAGE Match. We host an offseason event. We built a t-shirt shooter for the student booster club. We participate in local VEX tournaments. To the outside eye, we'd appear to be a Have.
All that was great fun, but it really bled our coffers dry. This year we're doing one regional, without much "comfort money." Hopefully in 2-3 years we'll be back up to where we can be a 2-regional team again, and start the cycle over.
Mike Soukup posted in the Pitfall thread the dangers and difficulties 111 encounters in the build season, and how much they *inhale audibly* with their design. Flippin' WildStang. A top-5 team on anybody's list.
We all have our problems to work through. As a team grows and evolves, so do the problems. Some teams just evolve more quickly than others, or in different areas.
The Have teams - they earned it, and I applaud them.
The Have Nots - get to earning.

*I realize situations arise that are outside the teams' control that drastically affect the team. Perseverance pays.

[Chris is me]

After my experiences on a team that through years of hard work was indeed a "have" team, maybe my perspective is a bit whack, but I consider a "have" team to be the following criteria:

• Can afford to go to two regionals plus Championship without winning an event (winning helps motivate the team to come up with $5000)
• Has engineering mentors
• Is not constrained further on the robot than the $3500 limit on parts
• Can machine a robot enough to make their optimal design

Essentially, the above is the "just out of reach" range for my current team. I think you'll find a lot of people that consider themselves "have nots" set the "haves" as what their optimistic goals are.

I'm was astounded that 2791 was a two-event team with only a $12,000 budget. Now I'll be thankful if we hit that again! (though with NASA we probably will now)

[thefro526]

It seems to me that "have's and have not's" seem to be based on the Current Standard for most teams in FIRST. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of teams now compete in at least two events and it's not really that uncommon to see a team compete in three or more.

In some cases I've also seem some smaller teams compare themselves to some of the larger, more well funded teams saying that they don't have the money, resources, etc to build a robot and compete on the caliber of larger teams. Personally I try to make sure to explain that teams like them aren't the norm in FIRST.

My Personal Definition of a Have or a Have not would be:

Have Not: Can barely afford to compete at one event, no money for off-seasons, minimal to no Engineering &/or School Support, basic tools, and a minimal Robot Construction Budget. I would consider this team to really need funding.

Have's: Can afford to compete in one regional without too much difficulty, has money for at least one off-season competition, has the support of their school, at least some level of Engineering or Technical Support, decent tool setup, and has a decent robot budget. Teams like this can always use funding, but I don't think they're in dire need of it except to expand their program.

Well Off: Can afford to compete in two or more regionals, has plenty of money in the off-season, School and Engineering support, good tooling, and a good/great robot budget. These teams could use more funding, but it would most likely be to expand their program.

Really Well Off: Consistently Competes in 3 or more events a year, competes in multiple off-seasons, excellent School and Engineering Support, a great tool setup, and a great robot budget. These teams seem to be extremely well funded and are usually the ones with the largest sponsorship base.

[Brandon Holley]

It is important, I think, to keep in mind that teams with large budgets or are "well off" are there for a reason. These teams have worked hard to develop their team and make it a program that companies want to invest in and form partnerships with.

As the teams grow larger, and make more connections, it allows for even more fundraising. Maybe your team is able to start a small lego program with some surplus of money after one season. This allows you to insert another feather into your cap to sell your team, and in turn brings in more money to allow you to start more lego teams. More companies are now supporting your team with more money each year and the program continues to grow. After several years, you now are supporting a whole network of teams and in turn your team has grown from a borderline have/have not team, to a really well off team.

The above example is one of the ways my high school team was able to evolve from a 1 competition/year team to a several tens-of-thousands of dollars financial powerhouse.


The point of the example is that its easy to sit back and say, "well you only really NEED enough money for 1 competition", and that may be so. However, I applaud any team who has put themselves in a situation where they are a financial machine, capable of supporting several initiatives at any point in time. Yes, technically for these teams to participate in FIRST, they only need enough money for a robot and 1 competition, but this is not the attitude we should take. Some teams have become so ingrained in their communities, that for them to take any steps back financially would actually hurt the people they support.

In conclusion, I think a team pursuing any kind of monetary donation through fundraising, sponsorship, donations, whatever it may be is just in doing so. Every team has the same opportunity to get out there and raise some money. Some teams may have a better starting point than others, and some teams may have better conditions for growth to occur, thats just life. Not every team will be able to reach that point where they can self-sustain year to year, and thats ok. The point I'm making is that what isn't okay is for a team to stop trying to become self-sustaining.

-Brando

[Carol]

Where do you put the cost of travel in these calculations? Travel can be one of the major costs. And how teams pay for travel varies a lot. On some teams, such as ours, the students and mentors pay for almost all of their travel themselves - if they need help, they can participate in various fundraisers to help pay for the travel. Other teams have their travel totally paid for by either sponsors or by the school.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Carol

Where do you put the cost of travel in these calculations?

I would put travel with competition in this case. If you can pay the registration fee but cannot get the team to the venue and cover the expenses that are incurred with the stay - then you can't afford to compete without securing the needed funds. That's why it is important to figure out the costs of competing at an event as far in advance as possible, create a budget, and be realistic in setting the goals for the season.

Jane

[rsisk]

I see a lot of definitions saying that a "Have" team means more than one competition. So where does this put Michigan teams who get 2 or more competitions for the price the rest of the world gets one? Do off-season competitions count towards the goal of the "Have"s.

I think my definition of a "Have" team would be a team that is well rounded and stable. Good mentor support. Competes well both on and off the field. Has a season that is more than just Jan-Mar. Has a strong student base that doesn't collapse because of a graduation ceremony.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by rsisk

I think my definition of a "Have" team would be a team that is well rounded and stable. Good mentor support. Competes well both on and off the field. Has a season that is more than just Jan-Mar. Has a strong student base that doesn't collapse because of a graduation ceremony.

Well said! I want to expand on the "well rounded and stable." Teams that are just building a robot and go to events while money is hand to mouth are the Have Nots. Teams that have a business plan and are executing that plan, along with doing all the other things that are not directly tied to building a robot (Media, outreach, etc) are the Haves. The teams that have their 2011 money either in the bank or committed are Haves and I'd bet are working on their 2012,13 funding now. (Grants have a long lead time)

Small cost robotics (VEX,FLL,FTC,Best,Firefight,Airbots,SeaPerch,etc) can be covered by small fundraising / grants and parents. FRC is very expensive in time and money. The "powerhouse" Have teams have deep multi-year partnerships in the community and business. The Have teams are working on making those partnerships be multi-year.

But moving from a Have to Have Not can happen in a blink if the team management gets distracted.