If you are a research-intensive institution, what you do with IDC is quite different than in an institution like mine, which is a small, graduate health sciences campus. We have no large research facilities, a few very small dry labs, no animal facilities, etc., thus our expenses are far less. While research is encouraged here, it is difficult for faculty to manage. They cannot buy out their time and have heavy teaching loads. The research reinvestment is a way to encourage them to do research and reward them for success. We have very few research grants with the vast majority of our grants focused on training (HRSA). The IDC from those types of grants does remain in the general fund and supports internal grants and other infrastructure.The point is your IDC policy should match the stated goals of your institution as outlined in a strategic plan and make sense within your overall structure. The process should be, as noted, as transparent as possible. IDC is always a hotly debated topic and many faculty members don't understand how it works and resent having to add to it proposals, particularly when there is an overall dollar limit versus only a direct cost limit. The more the policy benefits them (directly or indirectly) and the more they understand it, the more likely they are to support it.Kathy Rushlo, MHADirector, Sponsored Programs, Arizona Campus480-245-6240If you focus on results, you will never change. If you focus on change, you will get results.~Jack DixonOn Mon, May 6, 2019 at 6:14 PM Michael Kusiak <xxxxxx@ucop.edu> wrote:I will proffer a radically different approach: don’t redistribute recovered IDC, put it into your general fund.
If we want to educate our funders, PIs, an fellow administrators about the purpose of indirect cost recovery, we would NOT adopt internal policies that redistribute recovered indirect cost recovery.
The funds we recover are for costs that have already been incurred. Our negotiated rates typically don’t yield the full recovery we actually need to cover these indirect costs because of the cap on administration and the reality that despite applying the costing principles, federal negotiators typically over a rate below our calculations.
Consider reinvesting recovered IDC into your general fund.
Mike
Michael Joseph Kusiak
Research Policy Manager
510-987-0659
Research Policy Analysis and Coordination
University of California, Office of the President
From: Research Administration List <xxxxxx@LISTS.HEALTHRESEARCH.ORG> On Behalf Of Kathy Rushlo
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 1:18 PM
To: xxxxxx@LISTS.HEALTHRESEARCH.ORG
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Indirect Cost Re-Distrubution
The institution does not set the F&A (indirect) rate. The rate is determined by several factors (as you say) and is negotiated with the federal agency that provides most of your funding.
If you do not have a negotiated rate, generally you use the de minimums rate of 10% on modified, total direct costs (direct costs less equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each subaward in excess of $25,000). For foundations, etc. that do not specify an F&A rate (and allow F&A), the institution can set the rate. Our institution charges 8% on MTDC.
The distribution of the indirects collected is another issue. We are not a research-intensive institution and do not have tenure in the traditional sense. We do have a research reinvestment policy that rewards faculty willing to do research. The policy applies only to research grants, not program grants (an important distinction).
Kathy
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:42 PM Portzer, Lori <xxxxxx@lvc.edu> wrote:
My institution does not currently have a Grant office or a Grant Structure in place for Indirect cost Re-Distribution for when external grants are secured. While I am aware the actual rates/percentages are set by the institution and there are multiple factors involved, I wanted to inquire as to what a ballpark percentage would be appropriate to present to the College as a starting point and basis for discussion. We would have the following structure and I appreciate any feedback with slight justification so I may articulate a reasonable, responsible figure to my institution. Thank you!
1. College (at the determination of the Dean)
2. Department of Health Professions (at the determination of the Chair)
3. Principle Investigator
############################
To unsubscribe from the RESADM-L list:
write to: mailto:xxxxxx@LISTS.HEALTHRESEARCH.ORG
or click the following link:
http://lists.healthresearch.org/scripts/wa-HLTHRES.exe?SUBED1=RESADM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the RESADM-L list, click the following link:
http://lists.healthresearch.org/scripts/wa-HLTHRES.exe?SUBED1=RESADM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the RESADM-L list, click the following link:
http://lists.healthresearch.org/scripts/wa-HLTHRES.exe?SUBED1=RESADM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the RESADM-L list, click the following link:
http://lists.healthresearch.org/scripts/wa-HLTHRES.exe?SUBED1=RESADM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the RESADM-L list, click the following link:
http://lists.healthresearch.org/scripts/wa-HLTHRES.exe?SUBED1=RESADM-L&A=1