Report to the Financial Planning, Investment and Human Resources Committee

Transcription

1 Board of Trustees Report to the Financial Planning, Investment and Human Resources Committee Information Item TOPIC: Revenue and Expense Allocation June 25, 2015 Bryan Boles, Associate Vice-President, Finance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This topic sheet is a continuation of the initial Revenue and Expense Allocation topic sheet presented to the Financial Planning, Investment and Human Resource Committee on March 12, 2015 that outlined initial high level and suggested recommendations on how revenue and expenses could be allocated. Salient points that continue to carry forward from the previous topic sheet are as follows: 1. The process underway is looking to allocate revenue and expenses from an accounting perspective, not from a budget allocation perspective. This is not to say that an accounting model could not lend itself to a budget. 2. Allocation models take time for people to digest, discuss, and provide input. While initial high level suggested recommendations were provided in the March 12, 2015 topic sheet, this topic sheet provides a financial picture of some of those initial high level suggested recommendations. Now that a financial picture has been provided it is anticipated that Dean s and the University community will need the time to digest and provide comments. Further, to this point, point 3 below notes certain data points require additional investigation. 3. Certain key data points required to allocate costs are not immediately available. In Appendix #2 comments on data considerations have been provided to each cost driver. The most significant is space where it is believed that some kind of a space audit would be most beneficial to provide assurances over the starting point given the costs being allocated by the space cost driver is approximately $30 million. The next is scholarships where they are currently allocated by Faculty based on undergraduate awards a future adjustment will be required to incorporate and adjust the allocation metric to include a weighting to graduate awards. This topic sheet seeks to take the initial high level and suggested recommendations from the previous topic sheet, assign real data points to them, and actually calculate the allocation of revenue and expenses based on the budget report. This can be seen in Appendix #1. Key observations from Appendix #1 include the following: 1. Initial work suggesting the Goodman School of Business, the Applied Health, and the Social would be financially net positive is looking to be true.

2 2. Although this picture does not incorporate a tuition transfer for service teaching based on the information being accumulated to date, it is not anticipated that the Humanities, the Mathematics and Science, and the Education would become financially net positive even if such a tuition transfer had been incorporated. Financial Services and Information Technology Services is working on a model to calculate this efficiently and anticipate this picture will be available for Cycle 1 of the next Board of Trustees cycle. Users of Appendix #1 are cautioned on the following: 1. The tuition in this picture is allocated by Major. Work continues on allocating some tuition to recognize service teaching. 2. The numeric identification of cost drivers has changed since the previous topic sheet for some cost drivers. 3. As noted and as outlined in Appendix #2 certain key data points require additional review. This topic sheet notes that perhaps the two most significant are space and scholarships on the cost side. On the revenue side updated data for BIU calculations is required. The grant allocations performed in Appendix #1 use BIU data from Recognizing these points of caution, Users of this information are reminded that adjustments to any data value will impact the allocations. The revenue and expense allocation model is making progress but additional work is still required. In this respect Users are encouraged to consider Appendix #1 as a picture based on disclosed variables. As communicated to the committee in the topic sheet on this subject, Financial Services identified in its initial review that all Universities took the time to get it right. No model was perfect but buy in was essential for the model to have any effectiveness. Going forward Financial Services will be working with the Dean s through CAD Finance to fine tune the cost drivers and to develop solutions for areas where data requirements exist. In addition Financial Services has communicated this project with the Senate Planning Priorities Budget Advisory Committee and will be providing this topic sheet to them for comment. Financial Services has also introduced a web link at: to communicate the progress being made in this area with the University community and will be including updates in its Finance Connect newsletter. APPENDICES Appendix 1 Picture of Revenue and Expense Allocation (2 pages) Appendix 2 - Information on Allocation Cost Drivers (15 pages)

3 Appendix #1 - "Picture" of Revenue and Expense Allocation (in 000's) Phase 1: Below is the budget with initial space charges allocated to non-teaching faculties. Financial Planning, Investment and Human Resources Committee TOPIC: Revenue and Expense Allocation June 25, 2015 Appendix 1 Direct Revenue Personnel Costs Non- Personnel Costs Net (Budget Book) RESPONSIBILITY CENTER Space Charge Adjusted Net Global (1) Tuition ( Major) UG - Domestic 92, ,285-92,285 UG - Domestic (No Faculty) Grad - Domestic 7, ,186-7,186 UG - International 22, ,770-22,770 UG - International (No Faculty) Grad - International 3, ,479-3, , , ,703 Grant Basic operating grant 71, ,080-71, UG accessibility fund 1, ,407-1, Grad expansion grant 2, ,044-2, Nursing grant 2, ,763-2,763 General access and quality grant 3, ,769-3, Performance fund , ,763-81,763 Total Global (1)- Tuition/Grant (A) 208, , ,466 Teaching Faculties Applied Health 37-17, , ,060 Goodman School of Business 8,912-24,202-2,717-18, ,007 Education 4,753-16,955-1,987-14, ,189 Humanities ,181-1,131-21, ,556 Mathematics & Science , , ,191 Social Science ,065-1,401-35, ,128 Total Teaching Faculties (B) 15, ,372-8, , ,131 Total (A + B) ,335-81,335 Academic Support Graduate Studies 250-1, , ,284 7 Library 457-4,907-3,605-8, ,731 9 Research Services 1,796-2,425-1,803-2, ,313 8 Centre for Pedagogical Innovation , ,029 2 Centre for the Arts Total Academic Support (C) 2,572-9,534-6,507-13,469-1,653-15,122 Student Specific Student Services 12,048-12,288-4,520-4,760-1,858-6, Co-op and Career Services 1,265-1, , Athletics and Recreation 4,865-3,693-2, ,714-4, Total Student Specific (D) 18,178-17,969-6,870-6,661-5,699-12,360 Shared Services Leadership 16-2, , ,402 2 Information Technology Services 953-6,251-1,782-7,080-1,147-8,227 4 Financial Services 110-1, , ,524 1 Human Resourcs 242-2, , ,437 3 Marketing & Communications 15-1, , ,792 2 Development & Alumni Relations 812-1, , ,839 5 University Services 2,958-1,451-1, Shared Services Support - - 1, , ,458 2 Total Shared Services (E) 5,106-19,300-6,824-21,018-2,166-23,184 Ancillary Ancillary Operations 17,773-2,811-10,206 4,756-2,872 1, Department of Residence 16,493-2,517-13, Total Ancillary (F) 34,266-5,328-23,242 5,696-2,872 2,824 Space Facilities Management 1,004-12,459-3,787-15,242 15,242-6 Campus Security Services 17-1, ,328 2,328-6 Hybrid Space Utilities, Taxes and Insurance 2, ,989-7,329 7,329-6 Financing ,652-5,652 5,652 - Teaching Faculties ,969-17,969 6 Total Space (G) 4,081-13,822-20,619-30,360 12,391-17,969 Global (2) Scholarships, Bursaries and Student Awards 1, ,855-14, , Capital 4, ,000-6, ,458 2 University Global 3, ,067 1,853-1, Total Global (H) 9, ,922-19, ,460 Total (C+D+E+F+G+H) 73,564-66,852-91,984-85, , Total University 297, , ,847-3, ,937 1

4 Appendix #1 - "Picture" of Revenue and Expense Allocation (Continued) (in 000's) Phase 2: Allocation of budget using cost drivers. Applied Health Goodman School of Business Mathematics & Science RESPONSIBILITY CENTER Education Humanities Social Science Total Global (1) Direct Revenue / Expenses -"Above the line" Tuition ( Major) UG - Domestic 19,238 17,344 4,324 10,589 10,464 30,326 92,285 UG - Domestic (No Faculty) Grad - Domestic 952 1,177 1, ,486 7,186 UG - International , ,904 8,045 22,770 UG - International (No Faculty) Grad - International 103 1, , ,479 20,959 32,290 5,894 11,660 14,175 41, ,703 Grant Basic operating grant 14,656 11,229 8,888 9,507 7,916 18,884 71, UG accessibility fund , Grad expansion grant ,044 Nursing grant 2, , General access and quality grant ,001 3, Performance fund ,966 12,344 10,051 10,468 8,872 21,063 81,763 Total Global (1) - Tuition/Grant (A) 39,924 44,634 15,945 22,127 23,047 62, ,466 Teaching Faculties Applied Health - 18, ,060 Goodman School of Business , ,007 Education , ,189 Humanities , ,556 Mathematics & Science , ,191 Social Science ,128-35,128 Total Teaching Faculties (B) - 18,060-18,007-14,189-21,556-20,191-35, ,131 Total (A + B) 21,864 26,627 1, ,856 27,660 81,335 Academic Support Indirect Revenue / Expense -"Below the line" 7 Graduate Studies ,284 9 Library - 1,677-1, , ,580-8,731 8 Research Services , ,313 2 Centre for Pedagogical Innovation ,029 2 Centre for the Arts Total Academic Support (C ) - 2,983-2,538-1,488-1,503-2,621-3,989-15,122 Student Specific 10 Student Services - 1,283-1, ,960-6, Co-op and Career Services , Athletics and Recreation ,385-4,679 Total Student Specific (D) - 2,396-2,332-1,272-1,450-1,249-3,660-12,360 Shared Services 2 Leadership ,001-3,402 4 Information Technology Services - 1,573-1, ,420-8,227 1 Financial Services ,524 3 Human Resourcs ,437 2 Marketing & Communications ,792 5 Development & Alumni Relations , ,839 4 University Services Shared Services Support ,458 Total Shared Services (E ) - 3,802-4,482-2,423-3,821-2,565-6,091-23,184 Ancillary 10 Ancillary Operations , Department of Residence Total Ancillary (F) ,824 Space 6 Facilities Management 6 Campus Security Services 6 Hybrid Space 6 Utilities, Taxes and Insurance Financing 6 Teaching Faculties - 2,491-1,362-1,789-3,829-5,079-3,421-17,969 Total Space (G) - 2,491-1,362-1,789-3,829-5,079-3,421-17,969 Global (2) 11 Scholarships, Bursaries and Student Awards - 3,001-2, ,540-2,124-3,951-14,855 2 Capital - 1,235-1, ,899-6, University Global ,853 Total Global (H) - 3,876-3, ,095-2,605-5,302-19,460 Total (C+D+E+F+G+H) - 15,001-14,028-7,416-13,367-13,834-21,626-85, Total University 6,864 12,598-5,660-12,795-10,978 6,035-3,937 2

5 Appendix #2 - Information on Allocation Cost Drivers Financial Planning, Investment and Human Resources Committee TOPIC: Revenue and Expense Allocation June 25, 2015 Appendix 2 Method #1 - Financial Metrics 1-3 year Rolling Average of Operating Expenses The three year rolling average of operating expenses is a reasonable allocation method for areas where costs have a significant impact on activity within the Unit being allocated. The three year model attempts to smooth one-time significant fluctuations incurred by a teaching faculty. Financial Services A B B Applied Health Goodman School of Business Education Humanities Mathematics & Science Social Science Total Operating expenses 16,318 24,954 18,745 21,312 19,875 33, ,144 Operating expenses 17,074 25,918 19,988 21,695 20,398 35, ,080 Operating expenses 18,097 26,919 18,942 22,312 20,499 35, ,235 The data comes from actual activity in and the budget reports from and Going forward some consideration to using an alternative to a multi-year averaging might be appropriate if smoothing one time significant fluctuations incurred by a teaching faculty is not a concern. The concept of smoothing one time significant fluctuations stems from the fact that a significant temporary fluctuation could have a significant impact on cost allocations even though there might be a negligible change in the amount of activity actually performed by the unit. Page 1 of 15

6 Method #2 Slip Year Employee Headcount and Student Headcount ( Major) Headcount of employees and students is a reasonable allocation method for areas where the number of employees and students has a significant impact on activity within the unit being allocated. Leadership Marketing & Communication Shared Service Support Applied Health Goodman School of Business Education Humanities Mathematics & Science Social Science Total Headcount A Headcount faculty A OG headcount - staff A Student headcount UG ( major)* 3, A Student headcount Grad ( major)* The source of on-going (OG) headcount staff and headcount faculty is the budget report which is sourced through budget requests and approvals. The student data points are also from the budget report, which is sourced from Institutional Analysis who obtains this information from the Office of the Registrar at the February Ministry count date. Going forward some consideration to using a multi-year averaging like in method #1 might be appropriate to smooth one-time significant fluctuations in headcount incurred by a teaching faculty. Consideration should also be provided to obtaining instructional teaching and contract staffing information. Page 2 of 15

7 Method #3 Slip Year Employee Headcount Headcount of employees is a reasonable allocation method for areas where the number of employees has a significant impact on activity within the Unit being allocated. Human Resources Applied Health Goodman School of Business Education Humanities Mathematics & Science Social Total Headcount Headcount faculty OG headcount - staff The source of on-going (OG) headcount staff and headcount faculty is the budget report which is sourced through budget requests and approvals. Going forward some consideration to using a multi-year averaging like in method #1 might be appropriate to smooth one-time significant fluctuations in headcount incurred by a teaching faculty. Consideration should also be provided to obtaining instructional teaching and contract staffing information. Page 3 of 15

8 Method #4 Direct Cost Recovery, then #2 Direct cost recovery refers to a Unit charging for services (i.e. photocopying, telephone usage, laptop purchases outside of the normal ever-greening process, etc.). The basis is that these costs are specific, identifiable, and incremental with activity. The direct cost recovery, method is used in advance of method #2 (refer to rationale in method #2). University Services Information Technology Services Note: Although other units may perform some level of direct cost recovery this will be reviewed over the next year. These units have been specifically noted as utilizing direct cost recovery and while Financial Services will be working with them and others to review their models for recovery, these units specifically are expected to maintain some level of direct cost recovery going forward. Same as method #2. Same as method #2. Same as method #2. Page 4 of 15

9 Method #5 10 Year Rolling Average of Funds Raised A 10 year rolling average of funds raised is a reasonable allocation method for areas where the amount of funds raised has a significant impact on activity within the unit being allocated. The 10 year average recognizes raising funds is a multi-year activity. Development and Alumni Relations Donations Past 10 Years Percentage Capital 40, % Teaching Faculties Percentage HU 13, % 13, % BU 7, % 7, % SAFA 7, % Other 3, % Grad Studies 1, % Library 1, % AHS 1, % 1, % Athletics 1, % NEED % SS % % MS % % ED % % Research % Grand Total 80, % 23, % Note: The allocation is performed using non-capital funds raised for teaching faculties The data points for funds raised and received is as of April 30, 2015 and comes from Development and Alumni Relations using their Raiser s Edge tracking system. None Page 5 of 15

10 Method #6 Net Assignable Square Meters The use of net assignable square meters is a reasonable allocation method for areas where the amount of space being used has a significant impact on activity within the Unit being allocated. Facilities Management Campus Security Services Hybrid Space Utilities, taxes and insurance Financing See Appendix #6 (continued). Note the FTE information used to allocate classroom space was obtained from Institutional Analysis who obtains this information from the Office of the Registrar at the February Ministry count date. Facilities Management using their Archibus system. As noted with the data points certain space is removed from the calculation. In addition to the space noted there may be some other small space differentials resulting from certain spacing scheduled for a change in use (i.e. Centre for the Arts) or under review (i.e. Rodman Hall). Note: Rodman Hall also includes some of its space costs in the Humanities budget. Going forward some consideration of the lockdown timing of the data points and perhaps even governance is required. The data obtained was as of writing this report and it was noted that the MIWSFPA building as primarily been assigned to the Humanities while the Faculty continues to be assigned the space it held/holds prior to moving to the MIWSDPA building. When the current space is released there will certainly be cost shifts between Units occurring. There should also be consideration as to the use of FTE students to allocate classroom space. It was originally anticipated that the scheduling system would be used to determine classroom usage and then classroom space could be allocated from there. This said, when Financial Services reviewed the scheduling system it was felt that for now FTE might be a more appropriate method as the scheduling system does not appear to be consistently updated after initial scheduling. Additional discussion and review is required in this area. Page 6 of 15

11 Method #6 (continued) Net Assignable Square Meters The data points for net assignable square meters are as follows. It is important to note that this calculation removes certain space from the calculation as follows: 1. The net assignable square meters of residences are not included debt and capital repair have already been removed through a direct cost recovery transaction. 2. The net assignable square meters for Facilities management, campus security services, and hybrid space (referring to the commercial plaza with some teaching space) is not included as these are the Units generating the costs being allocated. Teaching Faculties Directly Assignable Space Classroom % of total space FTE allocation Common Space allocation Total Space Charge Space Applied Health 5,968 13% $ 2,491 Goodman School of Business 2,528 14% $ 1,362 Education 3,907 13% $ 1,789 Humanities 9,822 13% $ 3,828 Mathematics & Science 13,173 16% $ 5,079 Social Science 6,935 30% $ 3,420 Total Teaching Faculties 42, % 10, $ 17,969 Academic Support Graduate Studies $ 68 Library 1, $ 676 Research Services 2, $ 881 Centre for Pedagogoical Innovation $ 28 Total Academic Support 4, , $ 1,653 Student Specific 0 Student Services 5, $ 1,858 Co-op and Career Services $ 127 Athletics and Recreation 10, $ 3,714 Total Student Specific 16, , $ 5,699 Shared Services 0 Leadership $ 163 Information Technology Services 3, $ 1,147 Financial Services $ 262 Human Resources $ 162 Marketing & Communications $ 83 Development & Alumni Relations $ 141 University Services (Central Receiving/Shipping/Mail/Stores, Printing Services, Youth University, Visitor Services} $ 178 Shared Services Support (Internal Auditor, IA) $ 30 Total Shared Services 6, , $ 2,166 Ancillary 0 Ancillary Operations (Conference Services, Brock Dining Services, Campus Store, Parking Services, One Card Community Services) 8, $ 2,873 Total Ancillary 8, , $ 2,873 Total University 78,591 10,251 63, ,874 -$ 30,360 Page 7 of 15

12 Method #7 Slip year Graduate Student Headcount ( Major) Graduate student headcount is a reasonable allocation method for areas where the amount of graduate students has a significant impact on activity within the unit being allocated. Graduate Studies Faculty of Applied Health Goodman School of Business Faculty of Educatio n Humanitie s Mathematic s & Science Faculty of Social Science Student headcount Grad (Faculty of major)* Tota l The source of the student data points is the budget report which is sourced from Institutional Analysis who obtains this information from the Office of the Registrar at the February Ministry count date. Going forward some consideration to using a multi-year averaging like in method #1 might be appropriate to smooth one-time significant fluctuations in headcount incurred by a teaching faculty. Page 8 of 15

13 Method #8 3 Year Rolling Average of Research Revenue The three year rolling average of research revenue is a reasonable allocation method for areas where research revenue and related activity has a significant impact on activity within the unit being allocated. The three year model attempts to smooth one-time significant fluctuations incurred by a teaching faculty. The 3 year average also recognizes support and obtaining research revenue is not a one year activity. Research Services Applied Health Goodman School of Business Education Humanities Mathematics & Science Social Science Total Research revenue 2, ,044 1,443 8,481 Research revenue 3, ,450 1,902 11,236 Research revenue 2, ,491 2,199 12,822 The source of the research revenue is from the budget report which is sourced from Research Services. The revenue is based on research revenue received. Going forward it may also be appropriate to use this method to allocate all research support funding (formally called federal indirect) instead of specifically directing it to certain areas as a direct cost recovery type of transaction. The additional comments for consideration in method #1 also apply here. Page 9 of 15

14 Method #9 Slip Year Faculty Headcount and Student Headcount ( major) Headcount of faculty and students is a reasonable allocation method for areas where the amount of faculty and students has a significant impact on activity within the unit being allocated. Library Faculty of Applied Health Goodman School of Business Faculty of Educatio n Humanitie s Mathematic s & Science Faculty of Social Total Headcount Headcount - faculty Student headcount UG ( major)* 3, Student headcount Grad ( major)* The source of headcount faculty is the budget report which is sourced through budget requests and approvals. The student data points are also from the budget report which is sourced from Institutional Analysis who obtains this information from the Office of the Registrar at the February Ministry count date. Going forward it may be appropriate to consider alternative allocation models that better weight the cost of library acquisitions and faculty/student support to usage rather than treating all faculty/students as equal. Page 10 of 15

15 Method #10 Slip Year Student Headcount ( Major) Headcount of students is a reasonable allocation method for areas where the amount of students has a significant impact on activity within the unit being allocated. Student services Athletics and recreation Ancillary operations Department of residence Co-op and career services (note the co-op Unit before the costs of career services basically breaks even) University global Faculty of Applied Health Goodman School of Business Faculty of Education Humanities Mathematics & Science Faculty of Social Science Total Headcount Student headcount UG (Faculty of major)* 3, Student headcount Grad ( major)* The source of the student data points are from the budget report which is sourced from Institutional Analysis who obtains this information from the Office of the Registrar at the February Ministry count date. Going forward some consideration to using a multi-year averaging like in method #1 might be appropriate to smooth one-time significant fluctuations in headcount incurred by a teaching faculty. Page 11 of 15

16 Method #11 3 year Average of Scholarships, Bursaries and Student Awards by Student Recipient ( Major) The three year rolling average of scholarships, bursaries, and student awards is a reasonable allocation method as it reflects the cost of scholarships directly in the students Major, recognizes they are multi-year investments, and that students that come into one teaching faculty often take courses during their degree in other teaching Faculties. Scholarships, bursaries, and student awards Scholarships - Last 3 years Proportion Teaching Faculty 20.2% Applied Health 20.1% Goodman School of Business 0.6% Education 1.1% Teacher Education 17.1% Humanities 14.3% Math & Science 26.6% Social The data points above have been provided from the Student Awards and Financial Aid Office and only reflect undergraduate scholarships, awards and bursaries. At this point scholarships have been allocated based on undergraduate information only. Additional work is required to break out the graduate scholarships. Going forward the use of a 3 year average may need to be considered as it may be more appropriate to just recognize scholarships directly as incurred. Page 12 of 15

17 Method #12 Theoretical BIU Weighting of UG ( ) The Ministry funds the University through various grants for domestic students. Details of each can be found in the budget report. The funding model is interpreted by many as variable using the following calculation: BIU * * FTE *.99 As noted in the budget report on page most of the University grant is in fact fixed. Further, there is no mechanism to identify what students are funded through the variable portion vs. the fixed portion of the grant. For this reason we calculate the hypothetical grant as if the grant was not fixed and allocated the grant accordingly. Revenue being allocated UG accessibility fund this grant is variable Applied Health Business Education Humanities Math and Social NSF University Total Ug BIU 2013/14 4,010 3,187 2,060 2,873 2,109 5, ,109 Ug FTE Ug 2013/14 2,602 2,125 1,148 2,231 1,500 4, ,168 UG Grant 15,520 12,201 8,418 10,255 7,853 19,178 1,758 75,184 Averge BIU Weight per FTE Allocation 20.6% 16.2% 11.2% 13.6% 10.4% 25.5% 2.3% 100.0% Allocation with NSF removed 21.1% 16.6% 11.5% 14.0% 10.7% 26.1% 0.0% 100.0% Institutional Analysis who obtains this information from the Office of the Registrar at the February Ministry count date for fiscal The available data requires updating to fiscal This will impact the allocation as enrolment shifts as illustrated in the data points included in the budget report. Page 13 of 15

18 Method #13 Theoretical BIU Weighting of Grad ( ) Similar to the comments noted in method #13 above. A portion of the graduate grant is fixed and a portion is variable. The calculation in for a funded positions is as follows Masters students = x positions = 6,053 PhD students = x positions = 2,269 The total hypothetical grant is 8,322 For this reason we calculate the hypothetical grant as if the grant was not fixed and allocated the grant accordingly. Graduate expansion grant this grant is variable Math and University Total Applied Health Business Education Humanities Social Grad BIU ,377 Graduate Grant Allocation 1, , ,251 2,541 8,322 Allocation 16.0% 8.6% 21.7% 8.2% 15.0% 30.5% 100.0% Institutional Analysis who obtains this information from the Office of the Registrar at the February Ministry count date for fiscal The available data requires updating to fiscal This will impact the allocation as enrolment shifts as illustrated in the data points included in the budget report. Page 14 of 15

19 Method #14 Aggregate Theoretical BIU Weighting of Methods #13 + #14 As noted in methods #13 and #14 a portion of the Ministry grants are variable and a portion are fixed. The grants in this method would be considered fixed although the General Access and Quality grant and performance fund envelopes can change. Further, in the past couple of years the Ministry has implemented efficiency targets, which have reduced the basic operating grant. For this reason it may be more appropriate to call these grants effectively fixed. This model combines the theoretical undergraduate and graduate grant to produce a combined theoretical grant to appropriately allocate the grants. Revenue being allocated Basic operating grant General access and quality grant Performance fund Applied Health Business Education Humanities Math and Social NSF University Total UG Grant 15,520 12,201 8,418 10,255 7,853 19,178 1,758 75,184 Graduate Grant Allocation 1, , ,251 2,541-8,322 Hypothetical total Grant 16,856 12,914 10,222 10,934 9,104 21,718 1,758 83, % 15.8% 12.5% 13.4% 11.1% 26.6% 100.0% This is the sum total of calculated data from methods #13 and 14. The available data requires updating to fiscal This will impact the allocation as enrolment shifts as illustrated in the data points included in the budget report. Page 15 of 15