I've watched the communication re this subject since Jacquie Krones
triggered the discussion, since there seems to be some interest, I thought I
would add some history and a few more of the features for those that might
care to know more about the program.  While there has not been a formal
study to determine the value, I think Jean Humphries' comments (Hi Jean)
regarding her experiences with it while she was here supports the general
feeling that it is a success, however you would like to measure it.

First of all the program is entitled Investigator Incentive Award or IIA.
 The program, along with several later ones,  was initiated in January 1987
as ASU was attempting to significantly increase our level of grant and
contract support in pursuit of "Research I" status.  The program  was
intended to 1) cultivate the participating faculty's interest in involving
the central grant and contract office personnel early in the application
process,  2) provide minimal but reasonable funds to the individual faculty
to help them "bridge" gaps in funding streams and provide some flexible
funds for their use , 3) try to deal with regular requests for indirect cost
waivers for various (meritorious and mythical) reasons and 4) trigger
attention of the nonparticipating faculty that there could be some reward of
resources in times of shrinking budgets.  There may be others but my memory
dims.

The program (IIA) as it currently operates distributes a portion of the
indirect cost recovery to project directors or principal investigators from
projects awarded for research, scholarly or creative activities.

IIA's are given for all externally funded awards made in response to
proposals received in the Office of Research and Creative Activities (ORCA)
five or more working days in advance of the proposal submission deadline.

The IIA distribution is calculated on 1% of sponsor awarded total dollars,
exclusive of amounts for subcontracts and equipment, plus 2% of the indirect
costs awarded if the amount awarded is based on the full negotiated indirect
cost rate.  If the proposal included an indirect cost waiver, (internal, not
agency limitation), the IIA is based on only the 1% direct cost
notification, (double penalty).

IIA amounts will not exceed 50% of the indirect costs recovered and no
awards will be made if the calculated amount is less than $100.

In January 1990, in order to spur interest in larger dollar applications and
potentially influence interest in more interdisciplinary programs, awards
that were $250,000 or more per project budget year, had the percentage of
IIA return doubled to 2% and 4%.  That however has since been discontinued.

Some of the original criteria that did not stand the practicality of
application were: 1).  the award was to have been obtained under competitive
circumstances (lots of definition problems with this one); 2).  the award
must have been for a project that would lead to publication's in refereed
journals, book manuscripts or other appropriate professional public
expressions of the project's outcomes;  3).  awards were limited to project
directors associated with academic units or research oriented centers or
institutes;  4). the funds must be expended within 12 months from the date
of the IIA award letter (diminished the "bridging concept considerably); and
 5).  IIA amounts were reduced by any Vice President for Research provided
matching or costsharing.   I have added these counterproductive requirements
for anyone considering a similar program in order to hopefully avoid the
potential problem of burdening  a fundamentally good concept with a lot of
damaging and superfluous limitations (if only the federal agency grants
gurus would please take heed.)

Gary Chaffins
Director, Office of Sponsored Projects
Arizona State University
xxxxxx@ASU.EDU
(602)965-4941