This type of experience is common to all institutions. While most
institutions have several indirect cost agreements, negotiated on
assumptions justified by the need for only a limited indirect recovery -
eg. fellowships, clinical trials, limited sponsored research, they often
find state agencies etc. exempting themselves from the indirect cost
treatment applied to other funding sources. While sponsored research
has always been a portfolio of indirect reimbursement, host institutions
(with these types of state agency funding) often find themselves obliged
into this type of "cost sharing". Such inequities require institutions to
find ways of justifying this type of partnership, in hopes of a better
return in the future. However, this may also threaten the stability of the
current infrastructure, thereby giving way to re-engineering, cost
reductions, and a smaller but potentially more productive workforce (read as
more stressed out and taxed).
Gary P. Naegel
Administrator, Pharmacology
Yale School of Medicine
333 Cedar Street P.O. 208066
New Haven, CT 06520-8066
(203) 785-4373
FAX: (203) 785-7670
xxxxxx@yale.edu
****************************************************************************
********
----------
From: Lauren S. Unger, Ph.D.
To: Multiple recipients of list RESADM-L
Subject: Indirect Costs
Date: Wednesday, September 06, 1995 1:07PM
*** Resending note of 09/05/95 15:16
To: . --ULKYVM
FROM: Lauren S. Unger, Ph.D.
Admin Associate; Health Sciences Office of the VP for Research
PHONE: 502/852-4951 FAX: 502/852-1004
The indirect cost policy that applies to most state, regional, and local
agencies and foundations in Kentucky disallows or reduces funding to support
overhead expenses. At the University of Louisville, we are interested in
finding out if this exclusion/reduction of indirects is unique to programs
funded in KY? If NOT, we would be curious to know how other institutions are
able to cover there "real" expenses?
Your comments regarding this issue are greatly appreciated! Thank you.
