The Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study has laid off over a quarter of its workforce in an effort to stave off budgetary crisis and bring the still-fledgling institute’s staffing in line with its mission.

Thirty-three employees from across the Institute, but concentrated in the information technology and fundraising offices, were hit early this month by what Radcliffe officials said was a one-time layoff.

According to Radcliffe Executive Dean Louise Richardson, the largely administrative cuts are intended to alleviate a budget shortfall that could have spiraled as high as $50 million over the next 12 years if unchecked.

They also are in line with Radcliffe’s evolution, she and other officials at the Institute said. The former women’s college ceased to exist as independent entity when it formally merged with Harvard in 1999.

In the four years since, Radcliffe has attempted to remold itself as an elite research institute, doling out grants in the form of one-year fellowships.

Radcliffe officials say its mission is now centered around its fellows program, its collections—the most prestigious selection of books and manuscripts about women in the country—and its goal of outreach to alumnae and the general public.

A financial review concluded that personnel cuts were needed to this end.

“What we found through the administrative, program, and financial reviews was a discrepancy,” said Institute spokesperson Whitney Espich. “We realized we were still built to be a college and not an institute for advanced study.”

Radcliffe’s shrinking alumnae population both helped motivate and provided a target for the cuts in staff.

The Institute requires fewer people in its development office than it did when the alumnae pool was being recharged every year.

And with a narrowing demographic contributing to the Institute, Radcliffe has been strapped for cash and needed to find ways to drastically decrease its expenses.

At first it was thought that staffing could be cut back through normal attrition—people would leave and their positions would be eliminated.

But a slow job market meant that fewer workers were choosing to leave and management decided that waiting was no longer a tenable plan of action.

So the decision was made to take a larger step.

“It’s very demoralizing when people see their department getting smaller and smaller,” Richardson said. “We decided it would be better to do it in one decisive step, rather than gradually through attrition. It’s much better to be open about the realities of the situation.”