FASD’s Fundraising Squeeze
Reminder: Independent parent group — not affiliated with or endorsed by FASD.
TL;DR
It’s tax season. If you donated to FASD this year (and chose to itemize), you saw it on your return. If you gave less — or nothing — you’re not alone. Giving to the school has been declining for two years, even as enrollment hit an all-time high.
This year, all three major fundraising events fell short of their individual targets. An unexplained roughly $18,000 in additional contributions got the school to 92% of its $100,000 stretch goal — but the broader trendline is clear: donations are falling while the school’s reliance on parent fees is rising.
Next year will be harder. The bell schedule change could cost families a collective ~$45,000–$51,000 per year in new before/after care expenses — money that comes directly out of the same household budgets the school depends on for donations.
This is not a PTO problem. It’s a trust and transparency problem. Families give more when they know where the money goes, why it matters, and how it connects to the school’s mission.
Parent Analysis
Enrollment is up, giving is down
FASD has more students than at any point in its history — 224 funded students at October count, with current attendance at 225. By any operational measure, the school is growing.
Fee revenue is rising, while donations have not kept pace. Some of that is to be expected: more students means more fees, and some early grant funding may simply have aged out. But the shift is still worth noticing. In a healthy model, enrollment growth would ideally support both higher fee revenue and a broader base of charitable giving.
(revised)
(audited)
(working budget)
Sources: FY24 revised budget, FY25 audit, FY26 working budget (Feb 28 finance committee). All at fasdenver.org/fianancial-disclosures.
Two years ago, the school raised about $2.40 in donations for every $1 in fees. By FY26, that ratio has flipped: now it is roughly $2 in fees for every $1 in donations. That is a meaningful shift in the school’s revenue mix, and not in a direction that feels especially healthy.
Three events, three misses, one unanswered question
At the March board meeting, the school reported approximately $92,000 raised against a $100,000 stretch goal. On the surface, that sounds pretty solid. But when you trace the money through the individual fundraising events, the picture gets more complicated:
| Event | Goal | Actual | % of Goal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boulevard des Parents (Sep) | $5,000 | $2,330 | 47% |
| Colorado Gives Day (Dec) | $43,000 | $31,385 | 73% |
| Gala — Le Rodéo Français (Mar) | $60,000 | ~$40,000 | ~67% |
| Traceable total | ~$73,715 |
All three fell short. Together they account for roughly $74,000, leaving about $18,000 that is not publicly traceable to a specific event.
To be clear: that is not inherently a problem. Somebody stepped up, and that is a good thing. But if something is working, the broader community should know what it is so that success can be repeated — and so that fundraising feels less like guesswork.
And just as importantly: this is not a PTO problem. The volunteers who organized these events put in real work, and the gala alone raised around $40K. That is not nothing. The issue here is not lack of effort. It is that the school appears to be fundraising into real economic headwinds — tighter family budgets, broader uncertainty, and, soon, likely higher childcare costs.
Next year, the math gets harder
The new bell schedule takes effect next school year: 8:15–3:15, instead of 8:00–3:30. In the parent survey, 54.8% of parents said the change would increase their aftercare needs. That effect cuts across every usage level, including families who already use aftercare and expect to use even more.
Back-of-envelope math suggests the bell schedule change could cost FASD families a collective ~$45,000–$51,000 per year in additional before/after care expenses. (Math details and assumptions are in the appendix).
That is larger than the entire Colorado Gives Day target.
At the family level, the impact is not trivial. A household with two children adding three days of aftercare per week would pay about $2,160 per year — or about 2.3x the blended average charitable contribution per family implied by the FY25 audit. That blended average is imperfect, but the directional point stands: these are not small dollars.
One important nuance: a donated dollar is not the same as an aftercare dollar.
Donations go almost entirely to the school’s bottom line. Aftercare revenue has to cover staffing and program costs. So even if aftercare revenue goes up next year, that does not necessarily mean the school comes out ahead. If families redirect even a fraction of their giving toward new childcare costs, the school could wind up with less net revenue, not more. Donations are cleaner dollars.
The aggregate new aftercare cost ($45K–$51K) exceeds the Colorado Gives Day target ($43K). It’s almost like having a second gala — It represents 35–39% of FY25 total local contributions and roughly half of the school's $100,000 fundraising stretch goal. That is a meaningful new claim on the same household budgets the school counts on every year.
The “Since You’re Here…” Section
Unofficial reflections — offered in good faith (and with a grain of salt)
I want to be explicit: the section above is my attempt to keep things factual and balanced. This section is my personal perspective.
1) The FY27 budget needs to model the giving gap explicitly.
The FY27 draft should look at “Activities, Student Fees & Other” revenue and “Grants & Donations” revenue together — not in separate silos — and ask what happens when one rises while the other comes under pressure.
If aftercare demand goes up, and especially if rates rise later to meet that demand, the effect on the same families being asked to donate should be part of the budget conversation. That is not pessimism. That is just responsible modeling.
2) Financial impact analyses should be standard practice.
The bell schedule change was approved with survey data showing that more than half of parents expected increased aftercare need. The childcare rates are published. The donation history is in the audit. Connecting those dots took me an afternoon.
If this kind of financial impact analysis exists internally, it has not been shared with families.
Every major policy decision that touches family wallets should come with a documented assessment of downstream financial effects — not because it is legally required, but because that is what a well-governed school does.
3) Transparency rebuilds trust — and trust drives giving.
People do not stop giving just because money is tight.
They stop giving when they are not sure where the money goes.
Earlier this year, the Interim Director hosted a “Coffee with Kathy” session that walked families through the revenue side of school finances — per pupil funding, charter funding basics. It was genuinely helpful. At that session, I asked whether a future coffee could focus on the expense side: where the money goes, what the real gaps are, and what donations actually fund.
No additional coffees have been scheduled.
That is unfortunate, because the school does not just need donations. It needs confidence. And confidence tends to grow when leadership is willing to show the full picture.
4) Targeted fundraising could change the equation.
Instead of asking families to give to “the school” in the abstract, tell them exactly what their dollars will fund.
Families are more likely to rally around a specific need than a generic gap.
If the community knew that Colorado Gives dollars went directly to teacher visas, or that gala proceeds helped fund teacher retention bonuses, or that parent giving supported housing assistance, French curriculum materials DPS does not cover, or professional development for bilingual instruction, I suspect more families would step up — even in a tighter year.
FASD has natural mission-linked fundraising cases. Use them. Tie the ask to something concrete. Let families see the connection between the gift and the mission.
5) The deeper issue is not generosity. It is trust.
I do not think this community is ungenerous. I think it is cautious.
When families feel informed, respected, and connected to a clear mission, they often stretch farther than the budget says they should. But when communication is thin, tradeoffs are opaque, and policy decisions show up as new family costs, giving gets harder.
The giving gap is not just about philanthropy. It is about whether the school is making it easier or harder for families to say yes.
~ Greg
Appendix: The Math
Data Sources
Parent-only survey: FASD Bell Schedule Survey, reconstructed data file. 126 responses, all identified as "Parent/Guardian only." No staff responses included.
Aftercare rates: FASD website, Arrival + Dismissal page (fasdenver.org/arrival-dismissal). After School Enrichment: $10/day pre-registered, $15/day drop-in. A.M. Program: $5/day pre-registered, $10/day drop-in.
Financial data: FASD Financial Audit 2025 (year ended June 30, 2025). FASD Finance Committee Board Summary, February 28, 2026 (presented at March 2026 board meeting). All available at fasdenver.org/fianancial-disclosures.
Budget data: FASD FY24, FY25, and FY26 Adopted Budget Details. Available at fasdenver.org/fianancial-disclosures.
Fundraising data: Colorado Gives page for FASD, FASD 2026 Gala page, Boulevard des Parents campaign page, and the March 25, 2026 Community Newsletter.
Enrollment: FY25 audited: 230 funded students. FY26 October count: 224. FY26 working budget models 224 funded students.
Governance standards: Colorado League of Charter Schools Board Governance Playbook (October 2025), budget cycle guidance.
Aggregate Aftercare Cost Estimate
Step 1: Scale survey to enrollment. 126 parent respondents represent approximately 140 unique families (some share a response) covering an estimated 189 students (~1.5 children per respondent on average). Scale factor to full 230-student enrollment: 1.22.
Step 2: Estimate new aftercare spending by user segment. Using the cross-tabulation of current usage × expected need change from the parent-only survey, scaled to full enrollment:
| Current Usage | Survey Respondents Expecting Increase | Scaled Families | Est. Students | Assumed New Days/Week | Annual Cost (@$10/day, 36 wks) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never → New users | 6 | 7 | ~10 | 1.5 | $5,400 |
| Rarely → More frequent | 16 | 19 | ~28 | 1.5 | $15,120 |
| Sometimes → More frequent | 8 | 10 | ~15 | 1.0 | $5,400 |
| Often → Even more frequent | 20 | 24 | ~36 | 1.0 | $12,960 |
| Always → Maxing out | 19 | 23 | ~34 | 0.5 (half add 1 day) | $6,120 |
| Subtotal | 69 | 83 | ~123 | $45,000 |
Step 3: Add before care impact. The 15-minute later start (8:00 → 8:15) may increase A.M. Program usage. Conservative estimate: ~12 families add 2 days/week at $5/day = ~$6,480/year.
Total estimated new before/after care cost: ~$45,000–$51,000/year.
Key Assumptions and Limitations
Children per respondent: Assumed average of 1.5. Actual could be higher, which would increase aggregate costs.
Days per week: Moderate assumptions were used. Actual added usage could be higher.
Rate used: $10/day pre-registered. Drop-in families would pay 50% more.
School year: Assumed 36 weeks.
Survey representativeness: 126 responses out of roughly 140 families is strong coverage, but not perfect.
“Increase” interpretation: The survey asked about need for aftercare, not actual purchasing behavior. Some families may absorb the shift in other ways.
Donation causation: This post does not claim that aftercare costs directly cause reduced donations. It highlights the budgetary relationship between the two and argues that leadership should consider that relationship explicitly.
Forward-looking: The bell schedule change has not yet taken effect. All estimates are projections based on current survey data and published rates.
Per-Family Donation Estimate
FY2025 local grants and contributions (audited): $129,236.
Dividing that by roughly 140 families yields a blended average of about $923/family. That figure includes not only parent giving, but also local grants and possibly a small number of larger contributions. So actual average family giving may be lower. The number is useful mainly as a directional comparison
Illustrative Margin Estimate on Aftercare Revenue
A rough staffing-cost estimate for aftercare is $15–$20/hour, for roughly 2 hours/session, or $30–$40/day per staff member. At a 10:1 student-to-staff ratio, that implies a direct staffing cost of around $3–$4/day per student.
On $10/day of aftercare revenue, that suggests a gross margin in the neighborhood of 60–70%, before facility overhead, supplies, and administrative costs.
This is illustrative only. FASD does not publish a separate aftercare P&L, so the actual margin could be meaningfully different.
