91��ý

• The supplemental budget pool is available to support all divisions; a distribution of supplement to each of the three divisions ensures that the success of one improves the situation of all��

• The decision to provide 87% of the supplement to AHUM reflects the value we place in ensuring all three divisions remain strong; the supplement distribution can be changed to respond to future needs

• The basic budget metric, NTR, heavily weights (meaning rewards) classroom teaching, regardless of students’ majors; this metric rewards divisions for providing A&S students with general-education coursework across the divisions

• Support for our centralized Student Success team provides access and support for all students and encourages “AND-ing” across divisions��

• Much of the 11% for college administration is dedicated to student success, which necessarily means providing services according to student needs; 83% of the budget is then distributed to divisions based on student need and success as defined by the NTR formula (the remaining 6% is distributed to divisions through the supplemental pool, and this also supports students)

• In turn, each division should internally allocate funds in a way that best supports the students it serves.

• Like other colleges, the A&S administration provides valuable shared services and common goods. A&S is also far larger than any other college (e.g., 80% more students than engineering, the second largest college) and much more complex. This is our strength, and it both introduces economies of scale and reduces the efficacy of centralizing operations in the same way as done in other colleges. We determined that 11% is adequate to provide basic services and common goods for all three divisions at this time. We will continue to evaluate matters, especially at the three-year check.��

Although the college model is based on the same NTR calculations as the campus model, there are significant differences:

• The college model provides transparency on the full budget, including the amounts generated by each division and their contributions to college administration and the supplemental pool

• The amount allocated to support units is significantly lower in the college (11% in the college vs. 35% campuswide)

• The supplemental pool is significantly smaller (6% vs. 14%), and there is not a separate high-level strategic skim

• The supplemental pool is not distributed to maintain status quo; although changes will be buffered by college temporary funds, there is no “hold harmless” period in making necessary changes

• Distributions of supplement to NSCI and SSCI were intentionally balanced to ��ensure that their net contributions are more equitable����

A budget model alone cannot ensure fiscal sustainability. All divisions and the college administration will need to refine how they pursue their missions, especially given projected challenges to enrollments and revenues. The budget model represents a critical first step toward aligning resources with areas of need and should spur all of us to pursue opportunities for innovation. It provides the divisions and the college administration with fiscal predictability over multiple years, which will aid in strategic planning.������

We will assess the allocations and the model in 2028 and 2031. This analysis will enable us to fully examine our current state of fiscal sustainability and, if needed, adjust to better deal with enrollment demands or unforeseen costs. The intention of this analysis is not to create instability in our six-year budget allocation, but rather to ensure that the model and the allocations are working to meet our comprehensive goals and values sufficiently. This analysis will be undertaken by the deans and a shared governance group, much like the one convened for the development of the model and allocation.������