Queen’s is looking to create a new model that aligns closer to the Bicentennial Vision and research goals.
On March 26, the Provost and Vice-Principal, Matthew Evans, announced in Senate that the University is launching a review of the current budget model, which has been in place for the last 13 years. The purpose of the review is to consider how a new model could better align with the University’s priorities, particularly in relation to the Bicentennial Vision. The Journal reached out to the University for an interview, but was directed to an April 1 Gazette article announcing the review.
READ MORE: Leaked consultant document details proposed restructuring at Queen’s
Under the current model, revenue is largely distributed to faculties based on enrolment and program fees. Faculties then cover their own direct costs and contribute to shared service expenses through a set formula.
But according to a recent article in the Gazette, that system is no longer functioning to the extent that it produces the best university-wide outcomes that Queen’s aspires to. The article highlights government regulations on domestic student fees, domestic enrolment limits, and international student caps as reasons the current budget is falling short.
Over the coming months, the University will begin consultations on possible alternatives. According to the Queen’s Gazette, that process will include exploring different budget model options, engaging members of the university community, and holding more focused conversations with academic and administrative leaders.
The provost emphasized creating a new model that fosters increased research output and academic performance, and highlighted entrepreneurial revenue generation as one principle it wants to preserve in any future model. Evans also pointed to teaching and learning, as well as stronger collaboration across campus, as priorities for the review.
“Other key principles to take into account include meaningfully incorporating teaching and learning and creating better partnerships across the university, so central service units, such as student services, facilities, and many others, are clearly seen as partners vital to the university’s mission,” Evans said.
Based on the Gazette, the review comes as the University’s academic performance indicators face increased scrutiny over its research performance relative to peer institutions. According to the article, Queen’s has seen slower growth in research funding, output, and impact than other U15 schools, and now ranks at or near the bottom of the group on several major research funding metrics.
Evans also said recent provincial funding changes, such as the injection of 6.4 billion into post-secondary schools over the next four years, have created some financial flexibility that could help the University manage a transition to a new model.
According to Evans, the review isn’t intended to increase the total amount of money available at Queen’s, but rather to reconsider how existing funds are distributed. It also won’t determine how much services cost, which remains part of the Renew Program, nor will it govern how funds are allocated within individual faculties, which will remain under the authority of deans. The review timeline overlaps with the Renew Program, Queen’s broader initiative to improve operations and implement a new university-wide budgeting tool.
What could change, however, is the balance of revenues and costs across the institution, including how deficits are distributed between faculties.
At Senate, Evans said a revised model would not change the total amount of money in the University, but would “change the distribution of that money” and “quite likely” alter “the pattern of deficits” across Queen’s.
READ MORE: Spring Senate learns about upcoming review of Queen’s budget model
The review will begin this spring, and more details are expected as consultations begin.
Tags
2025 Budget, Budget review, Provost, Provost Matthew Evans, Queen's budget
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.