Now, just over four months after the committee delivered its findings, the Radcliffe Association is on its way out.

Several members of the Futures Committee say they expected the association would eventually dissolve as a result of the merger. But Figueroa says the Institute’s decision to cut their funding came as something of a surprise.

Though the report recommends that the Radcliffe Association adopt a “new model that includes affiliation with both the [Radcliffe Institute] and the Harvard Alumni Association” over a transition period of two to three years, members of the association’s board will only be invited to serve a term on an alumnae outreach advisory board.

“We’d hoped to be part of this transition process in a formal and supportive way, although this is not officially going to happen,” she says. “If someone were to ask, is this necessarily the right course of action, I’d have to say no.”

HAA Director John P. Reardon said he has invited members of the Radcliffe Association’s board to sit in on HAA committee meetings, and would welcome their involvement in the HAA.

And many Radcliffe Association members, including Figueroa, say they plan to accept the invitation.

If the Radcliffe Association wanted to stay together as a unit, Reardon says he would not prevent them from doing so.

“Committees have a way of staying in business forever,” he says. “They’re a committee of Radcliffe alums. They’re not going to be financed by Radcliffe any longer, but that doesn’t mean that as a group, they can’t sit down together and talk or have lunch.”

Reardon noted the HAA has had a history of participation from women—including several female presidents—and plans to continue its efforts to get more women involved.

The doors of the Office of Alumnae Affairs are now open for business, and on June 30, the Institute will officially stop funding the Radcliffe Association.

The office will provide many of the same services—including reunions for pre-1963 alumnae and the mentorship program which pairs undergraduates with alums—with the staff and funding assigned to those services remaining essentially unchanged, according to Rogers.

Faust says that preserving such programs is not at odds with the Institute’s new goals.

“Our first commitment is to be what we are and to be honest about it, not to fool anyone,” Faust says. “It would be a mistake to try and fool our constituency.”

Unlike the association, which had no official oversight within the Institute, employees in the new office will report directly to Faust and Rogers.

Though she says the difference will be unnoticable to most alums, Figueroa says the way programs are run will likely change.