Sorry to be late in responding, but I must have regrettably overlooked your original e-mail.

1 & 2) In any event, the University of Minnesota "rebates" 51% of F&A recoveries to colleges on a semi-annual basis (with the remaining 49% retained by central administration).  In brief here, this 51% is equivalent to the Departmental Administration (DA) and Equipment Depreciation cost pool portions of our current federally negotiated Research F&A rate.

The rationale for returning DA to colleges/departments is that revisions to A-21 mandated less allowable direct charging of clerical and administrative salaries to grants (see A-21, section F6b).  Therefore, colleges and departments need the recovery dollars to support these activities locally.  The rationale for returning the equipment depreciation portion to colleges is that local units incur most of the purchasing and inventorying responsibilities/costs.

3) The recoveries rebated to Colleges represent Unrestricted funds.  Also, colleges may autonomously distribute their rebates with no central monitoring.  In many cases, colleges re-distribute dollars to departments.

4) It is my understanding that colleges do fund some "internal research" via their 51% rebate dollars.  However, it must be remembered that recovery dollars reflect the return of funds to pay for the "real" indirect type administrative/equipment costs incurred during the performance of work on sponsored agreements (i.e., bid and proposal activities, financial monitoring/reporting, effort certification, etc.).

5) Our rebate process falls under the broader local "Incentives for Managed Growth" program.  The local IMG Document (starting on page 11) may be viewed at the following Website:
http://www.irr.umn.edu/rcm/rcmfinal.htm

Regards,
Steve

=======================================================

On 10/8/01, Amy Hibbard wrote:

Hello all-
I'm conducting an informal survey of the various policies regarding indirect
cost allocation.  We're researching the feasibility flowing back of a
portion of these funds to internal research, and I was wondering how other
institutions allocate their recovered IDC.
If funds flow back to fund research, what percentage is returned and what is
kept for institutional overhead costs?
How are these flow-back funds allocated within the research structure, i.e.
a general research fund, department fund, individual PI support?
How is the spending of recovered IDC funds monitored and by whom?

Any guidance you can give me will be very helpful.  We're starting to firm
up our practices into formal policies, and I'd like to create a good
foundation to work from.
Thanks,
Amy

"All power corrupts, but we need the electricity."

Amy Hibbard
Grants Administrator
Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences
535 Watson Drive, Claremont, CA 91711
T: (909) 607-9313 / 607-7855
F: (909) 607-8086
xxxxxx@kgi.edu
www.kgi.edu

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================