1. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet1 The Proposed Budget

2. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet2 Methodology Not a bottoms-up analysis of what we need to carry out our program. If it were, the request would be larger (~5-7%). We took as reality the difficult budgetary constraints in the NSF HEP program office. We tried to get as much as possible from an inflationary or sub-inflationary increase. I will mention what was squeezed too much later. Complication The first year of the proposed grant coincides with the last year of Kim’s current grant. In comparisons, I will add them. The year the current grant was approved was very bad for NSF HEP, resulting in large reductions. An agreement was made for supplements to help restore the base.

3. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet3 First Year Budget Tables YKK grant + 2 postdocs in YKK grant

4. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet4 + 1 in YKK grant

5. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet5

6. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet6 Second Year: all in one grant

7. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet7

8. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet8 Comparison of Existing & Proposed Funding Comparison for the same number of faculty: use the last 2 years of the current grant + Kim’s support for those 2 years + the supplement we received last year (to help restore the base from the large decrease). This is compared budget item by budget item with the first 2 years of funding in the proposal + Kim’s support for next year. (Beyond that, she is part of the group grant.) The average annual increase over that 2 year interval is then calculated. It can be compared to the 3.6% personnel/non-personnel weighted inflation (according to NSF guildelines).

9. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet9 1 2 1 3 2 1 Termination of State of Illinois accelerator R&D program 2 ATLAS is now attracting students 3 More travel to CERN 4 Senior research staff → 2.0 4

10. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet10 Sanity check: Compare the final year of the previous grant (with Winstein) to the first year of the proposal + Kim’s final year. The average yearly increase over that 4 year period is 2.6% (between flat and flat-flat).

11. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet11 Our Choices Protect graduate students and to a lesser extent postdocs (assume more Fermi Fellows). Protect the E-Shop –Played a central role in all of our experiments –Has provided important innovations –Central to our training of students and postdocs –Critical that technical infrastructure not disappear from universities Squeezing (too much) materials & supplies, permanent equipment, domestic travel, undergraduates.

12. 1/14/05NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet12 It is a very tight budget We have traditionally had very large detector responsibilities as well as large physics output. A few more grad students would help a lot. Personal examples: –Graduate student who should be spending most of his time on analysis is one of 2-3 in CDF maintaining SVT and is designing the new SVT Track Fitters. –Progress on the FTK proposal has been much slower than I wanted because until a few months ago I had nobody to work on it. We have very little for R&D prototype hardware.