Sustainability In FRC Teams

[Basel A]

Quick thought: Instead if grants, dollar-for-dollar endowments. Instead of giving a team so much money, give it as much money as it fundraised, up to a certain point (maybe $10-15k). Good alternative to straight grants, makes getting funding easier while acclimating a team to getting funding, so they aren't a fish out of water when the grant runs out.

[EricH]

What I'm seeing is that there are 3 distinct sources of non-sustainability, and a wide range of solutions. This is just a summary post; feel free to add to it or take issue with something I say as you will.

1. Funding.
--Solutions vary depending on team situation, ranging from find more sponsors to convince the school/district to let them raise more (or fund them more). Grants are a band-aid, not stitches. A matching grant, as Basel proposed, would be a longer-term patch, but not necessarily a permanent fix.

2. Leadership/Mentor/Student Involvement.
--Students are relatively easy--recruit more. OK, so you do have to convince them that non-nerds can do it, but that's not much of a hurdle. The bigger problem is if a key leader has to step down and there is no succession plan. The best bet is to have several mentors; second best is to have a definite plan such that if Head Mentor A is transferred to a point five states away, Mentor B (or, in the case of teacher-advisers, some other teacher at the school) steps up for a while.

3. School/District Involvement, or Lack Thereof.
--Which is worse: the district ignoring you, other than "Oh, we have a robotics club? That's nice", or the district stepping in and placing limits on you, along with their funding your registration? Either way, it's got the potential to be bad. Awareness is key here. While I wouldn't suggest kidnapping a superintendent or principal and hauling them off to competition, telling them a) that you exist, b) that you want to keep existing, and c) that you'd really, really, really like them to show up at your competition on X date is certainly acceptable, and in fact encouraged. Community awareness helps too--administrators are more likely to listen to the people that pay their salaries (aka taxpayers for public schools, parents for private schools) than to students.

--Independence from a school district is another option, but you really need help to get started if you're going that route so that you don't run into any serious trouble with the law (IRS tax codes and non-profit status come to mind).

[Eric O]

[quote=EricH;976637]What I'm seeing is that there are 3 distinct sources of non-sustainability, and a wide range of solutions. This is just a summary post; feel free to add to it or take issue with something I say as you will.

1. Funding.

2. Leadership/Mentor/Student Involvement.

3. School/District Involvement, or Lack Thereof.

[quote]

One word: Alumni

I have always wondered if/when FIRST could become self-sustaining. As the program graduates more and more students each year it builds an alumni base who knows what the program has done for them, and if they return to help, what they are doing for the kids involved today. Here is how I see them helping in all 3 categories you specified.

1. Funding.
Many alumni go to college and likely make some decent money (50k+) coming out of school. Some of them will eventually go on to make substantially more than that, and maybe even a few will start the next Google, I-Robot, or Facebook. Even if an alumnus doesn't own a company they are still the best person for convincing the company they work for that sponsoring a FIRST team is a good idea. I think it will take alumni being 10-15 years out of high school before they have enough pull in their company or own a business that could substantially help teams. However, FIRST has grown exponentially, and therefore the number of these alumni is currently growing exponentially. On 177, most of our mentors are FIRST alumni. These alumni request support of the team and also donate a couple hundred dollars out of pocket also, usually in the form of robot parts.

2. Leadership/Mentor/Student Involvement.
As an alumnus I actually find mentoring more fun than participating as a student. I think many alumni would find this and therefore be willing to mentor. If alumni are willing to mentor and lead at least the technical portion of the team, it takes the load off of the high school mentor and hopefully allows them to avoid burnout. If you benchmark teams with 10+ years of sustainment I would bet they have a dedicated teacher and engineering mentor who successfully divide up the workload. A teacher will be more likely to start a team if they know they have help from someone that has done this before. Again, 177 has many mentors who are FIRST Alumni and this helps with our sustainability by knowing what to expect every year, operating efficiently, and having. I should clarify that these alumni are 6-13 years out of high school, not the kids that graduated last year. This is an important note as I do not think FIRST should be asking kids in college to be starting or help save teams. In the student involvement area, alumni probably can't do much here except maybe talk at a school assembly about what participating has done for them or ensure that a team is fun for the students so they tell their friends.

3. School/District Involvement, or Lack Thereof.
Just like alumni speaking at a school assembly to recruit students, alumni should be used to gain district involvement. Again, if someone is a product of the process, requesting support of the process is a lot easier if the product is standing in front of them. Alumni should be encouraged to go to Board of Ed meetings to stand up for the program. If the alumni lives in town, that is even better because they are also a taxpayer. On Bobcat Robotics we also try to keep track of what the program has produced. We like to note that students graduating from the team combined have received over $500,000 in college scholarships related to FIRST.


There are many methods and resources which could be used to ensure sustainability of a team. I think alumni are one which is not used as well as it could be.

-EOB

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Cory

It's difficult to do that when HQ's outwardly visible goal seems to be "start as many teams as humanly possible".

FIRST's stated goal is to do exactly that - start a team in every school.

Most schools have a football, basket, baseball team along with a marching band and other programs. They are very costly and in this part of the world they are paid for by booster organizations. The facilities and fields owned by the school but the operational and maintenance cost are paid for by the booster organizations and/or team fees.

Teams's are autonomous entities and not under teleoperated control by HQ when it comes to fundraising.

Sports and music programs do not go to their 'HQ' when they need money. Why should we be any different ? It isn't because of cost. The per student cost of our robotics programs is on par and several cases less than that of the sports / music programs.

[Chris is me]

No one is saying FIRST should pay for teams, but maybe FIRST should stop giving so much less help and attention to teams that exist for more than one year.

[BJC]

I think FIRST (or us on CD) should start a buddy program in which rookie teams are paired up with veterans for there first season. Obviously, the veteran team would have to consent, but there are enough teams now to have at least a 5 year old team for every new rookie. These old teams would get the new teams up to speed answering questions via phone, conference call, ect; or if close, even in person. They could go over things rookies would have no idea about such as game analysis, scouting, wiring, programming, sponsorships, even time management. This would greatly lower the chances of a rookie team failing after their first year. Plus if they chose, the buddy teams could stay in contact in years following. This is the sort of thing that would draw the FIRST community even closer; building connections and friendships between teams that will last for years to come.

[synth3tk]

I think what's trying to be said, is that while FIRST wants to have a team in every school (which is an acceptable goal), that will never happen if they don't make at least an effort to help some of the teams that are in need, since there are teams continually dropping while FIRST focuses on starting new teams. Of course, there may never be a year where no teams leave the program, but you should at least try to retain the ones that can be helped.

On the subject of stubborn school districts, we had to overcome some hurdles to even have a team last season. They even allowed us to continue operating without a school teacher (our engineering mentor runs double-duty). The reason why we're still here? The students. When they caught wind that there would not be a team this year, they bugged the heck out of the school board, pushed to find the residue funding from the year before, and recruited plenty of other students.

If you're having a hard time with the board, see if any of your students are related or close to a board member and can speak to one of the members. Make a short presentation to present the board at the next open meeting. Invite the members to the competitions, outreach, and even the team meetings. Sometimes, it's just a case of ignorance. They see thousands of dollars going out to some club, but may not know what's going on, or why they should continue supporting it.

[EricH]

If we're going to start our own sustainability initiative, we need to consider why teams drop out, and target that.

Up here in SD, the half-dozen or so teams that used to be here back around 5 years ago are all gone. They were funded by a grant, and when the grantor had to cut back on funding due to other things, they dropped out, except for one. That one team is no longer in FRC. I can think of another 4-5 teams in and around L.A. that have dropped out for whatever reason, funding included.

Most of the teams that I know about that have dropped have not been able (or, not been willing) to raise the funds needed to compete. Some went to FTC or VRC, as both of those are cheaper, but others seem to have vanished entirely. Very few have disappeared due to lack of students/mentors.

[Jon Stratis]

I think everyone agrees funding is a big issue... If a team can't develop multiple independent sources of funding, when one company drops out it becomes a huge deal. Even if there are plenty of mentors and students involved with the team, if you can't come up with enough funding to get the KoP and a regional, the team is finished.

And, as others stated, leadership is also a big deal. Without good leadership, a team will fall apart. The biggest issue with this has to be finding new mentors to replace old ones. For us, two years ago our electrical mentor moved to California, and thus couldn't help with the team anymore. Ever since then, I've been filling in at the position, but I'm not an electrical engineer. I know there's so much more an EE could help the kids with... but we can't find one to work with the team.

Frankly, given the thousands of students FIRST graduates every year, I find it shocking that we don't have more of them coming back to mentor. Yes, some do... but many don't. I think the biggest problem with that is a lack of involvement with FIRST in college. Being a college mentor is hard, and making the transition from hands-on working on the robot one year to standing back and helping the next is very difficult... difficult enough to discourage people. Having the time to be a valuable part of the team while in college is incredibly hard.

FIRST has been "growing backwards" for a long time now. The focus has been on getting kids involved at younger and younger ages (FTC, FLL, Jr. FLL), and developing a program that guides them from elementary school up through high school. And it's done a great job with that... However it all pretty much just stops there. We assume that we can provide the influence to get kids into engineering in college, but we don't go on to support them once they are at an engineering school. We hand them off to professional engineering societies and let them proceed without us. They get involved with those societies and stay involved with them after they graduate.

What first really needs at this point is a college program. Something that can accommodate the students schedule with a longer, less intense build season that doesn't require 40 hours per week of work. Something that lets them be hands-on with the robot, building and shaping it, while introducing more leadership and mentoring opportunities (possibly through workshops or camps designed for the other FIRST programs). Keep those kids involved with FIRST throughout college, and we'll start seeing a lot more of them coming back to help mentor teams after they graduate. And when they do, they'll bring the thousands of companies that don't already sponsor FIRST they work for with them. It's a win-win that helps with both of our biggest issues.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by eagle33199

...We assume that we can provide the influence to get kids into engineering in college, but we don't go on to support them once they are at an engineering school. We hand them off to professional engineering societies and let them proceed without us. They get involved with those societies and stay involved with them after they graduate.

What first really needs at this point is a college program. Something that can accommodate the students schedule with a longer, less intense build season that doesn't require 40 hours per week of work...

I can't quite see this as a positive idea. The bigger picture goal is to spread the FIRST culture throughout society, and keeping college-age students closely tied to FIRST would likely end up making them more insulated from the rest of the world. If we want to transform that world, the professional engineering societies need them more than FIRST does.

The way I see it, sustainability shouldn't mean keeping individuals in FIRST longer. It should mean giving teams the ability to survive even when specific individuals leave. It should mean giving them the ability to survive even when they lose specific sources of funding. It should be about team continuity, not about personal lifetime commitment (though such commitment can be a large help in making the rest happen).

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I can't quite see this as a positive idea. The bigger picture goal is to spread the FIRST culture throughout society, and keeping college-age students closely tied to FIRST would likely end up making them more insulated from the rest of the world. If we want to transform that world, the professional engineering societies need them more than FIRST does.

The way I see it, sustainability shouldn't mean keeping individuals in FIRST longer. It should mean giving teams the ability to survive even when specific individuals leave. It should mean giving them the ability to survive even when they lose specific sources of funding. It should be about team continuity, not about personal lifetime commitment (though such commitment can be a large help in making the rest happen).

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing in college. Having FIRST actively involved on campus every year will create even more interaction with the professional societies. A college FIRST program would jump at the chance to work with all of the other engineering societies on campus to promote and celebrate eWeek, for example.

If we could get just 10% of current FIRST students to give 4 years of mentoring after college, teams wouldn't have a problem finding new mentors when old ones get burned out, move, or have to focus on other life commitments. One person, fresh out of college working some place that hasn't been exposed to FIRST can get that company involved in just a year or two. It would help provide a constant influx of new leadership, mentors, and companies.

[ebarker]

I'm basically with Alan on this one. I do not think FIRST should be in college for many reasons.

These students need need to focus on school and move on to new and fresh experiences. A time will come when they will return to FIRST as educated and experienced mentors. It may be in a future job or when they have kids but the day will come.

There is a large pool of potential mentors out there right now that are fresh and motivated. They just need to be recruited. They need to learn more about FIRST type programs. If properly presented they will come. And when they come there is a possibility that due to their presence funding might improve. Either because their company has an allowance to give to initiatives that their employees are involved in, or they may know someone that can donate, or they have some talent in fundraising.

In a little over two weeks MIT will be releasing the 1st in a series of short videos that you can use to help with mentor recruitment. It is from an effort called the MIT Mentorship Initiative.

Stay tuned.

[Tom Line]

Sustainability is a real issue in FIRST. I think there are several contributors.

Most teams rely on a single "Angel" sponsor for the majority of their funding. When that Angel disappears, sustaining their team becomes very difficult.

For instance, a number of long-term teams in Michigan (6-7 years) are in major trouble because the sponsorship from some Michigan automakers is drying up.

At the same time, many companies are only interested in starting their own team - not sponsoring an existing team for any large financial amount. Bringing a new long-term big-money sponsor on board is very difficult.

Diversifying your sponsorship is key, but it's very difficult to keep a divese base of sponsors intact - the time requirements are large.

A FIRST robotics budget is simply above the amount of money that most people can fundraise every year. $15,000 (a reasonable budget that would allow you to be competitive) is incredibly difficult to fund-raise.

Probably my biggest gripe is something we've run into the last two years. When we started raising our entry fee I've heard a number of comments about how "pay to play" sports don't cost as much as robotics.

Schools think nothing of building a track, a soccer field, a baseball field, and a football field. Bleachers, lights, and then maintaining all that year round. In addition they eat a huge chunk of teams expenses (travel, equipment). Schools are the "Angel" investor in terms of sports. That's why so-called "pay to play" is still so inexpensive. Selling this sport to the schools and getting their decision-makers (the union leadership and the administration) to buy-in should be a huge focus.

I've presented a lot of problems and not many solutions: they are all problems our team has fought with over the last 4 years and continue to fight with.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by eagle33199

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing in college. Having FIRST actively involved on campus every year will create even more interaction with the professional societies. A college FIRST program would jump at the chance to work with all of the other engineering societies on campus to promote and celebrate eWeek, for example.

I'm not against the idea. I just don't think it has a lot to do with the topic of sustainability.

If we could get just 10% of current FIRST students to give 4 years of mentoring after college,...

I don't see how extending the "student competition" model past high school would lead to that happening. Forming teams to solve technical challenges is intended to expose students to the excitement and satisfaction of real-world science and engineering. That's not necessary for college students who have (mostly) already chosen their path. If we want to increase the availability of mentors, we need to expose them to the excitement and satisfaction of mentoring.

It seems to me that an emphasis instead on more volunteering might be better. College students who haven't yet gained the experience (and occasionally the social maturity) to be effective mentors will still be able to help regional/district competitions happen smoothly, and in an intermediate position between student and mentor they can get a more appropriate perspective on what good mentoring entails. Rather than giving them a technical problem to solve and the technical resources to help them solve it, give them a people problem and the social resources to help them meet the needs of the organization. Form a "FIRST Volunteer Corps" and make training available. Hold seminars on Tribal Leadership or something.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by eagle33199

...
What first really needs at this point is a college program. Something that can accommodate the students schedule with a longer, less intense build season that doesn't require 40 hours per week of work. Something that lets them be hands-on with the robot, building and shaping it, while introducing more leadership and mentoring opportunities (possibly through workshops or camps designed for the other FIRST programs). Keep those kids involved with FIRST throughout college, and we'll start seeing a lot more of them coming back to help mentor teams after they graduate. And when they do, they'll bring the thousands of companies that don't already sponsor FIRST they work for with them. It's a win-win that helps with both of our biggest issues.

Switch from discussing a single program (FIRST) to discussing, STEM, Robotics, and Inspiration; and you find that there are many, many opportunities for college students (VRCC came to mind immediately for me).

While "we" continue to invest in FIRST because it supplies a large return on our investments, we should remember that FIRST is a subset of STEM and Robotics competitions. We make a mistake if we assume that it is the only game in town.

Regardless, your point about guiding each STEM/FIRST alumnus to invest in the next generations is still valid. Perhaps just not in full-blown FRC mentoring while they are in college. FRC can be a huge time sink.

Blake