Re: Internal Indirect Cost Distribution Robert Miller 24 Feb 2005 18:36 EST
The strategy seems to be based on a fair share concept, often utilized in labor negotiations as it allows costs to be fairly distributed. In opposing such a strategy, what would you offer in the alternative? Robert Gregory Miller Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Div. of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Molecular Science Administrative Director/Research Administrator xxxxxx@cdrewu.edu Office: 323.563.5961 Fax: 323.563.5966 Notice of Confidentiality This message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee or any person entitled to receive it. If you received this message in error, please inform the author as soon as possible, do not disclose its contents and delete it from your system -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On Behalf Of Charna Howson CKHOWSON Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:04 PM To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Internal Indirect Cost Distribution Dorothy, I believe this practice would create much ill will. Moreover, you will likely find yourself spending more on tracking distribution of those funds than you will recover..... If it were suggested here, I would strongly oppose such a move. Charna _______________________________________ Charna K Howson Associate Director Office of Sponsored Programs POB 26170, Suite 103 Foust The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 Phone: 336-334-5878 Fax: 336-334-3140 "Spurlock, Dorothy" <xxxxxx@UTNET.UTOLEDO.EDU> Sent by: Research Administration List <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG> 02/23/2005 01:53 PM Please respond to Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG> To xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG cc Subject [RESADM-L] Internal Indirect Cost Distribution Does anyone utilize a sliding scale to determine the distribution of internal indirect cost recovery, when receiving less-than the full assigned rate. For example, if you receive something less than your fully-approved rate from a sponsor, does your central administration take a larger share than normal of the IDC that will be received? Currently, our fully-approved rate is 44% which is distributed 70% to central administration, 10% to the college and 20% to the department. If we were to receive 19% indirect cost on a project, then the proposed distribution would be 82.5% to central administration, 3.75% to the college and 13.75% to the department. If you utilize a similar system, what are the good/bad points of doing so? If your institution thought about using this type of plan but did/ did not,what was the rationale? Thanks, Dorothy A. Spurlock Director, Research & Sponsored Programs The University of Toledo ====================================================================== 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") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================