The Indirect Cost Squeeze, Despite Research Growth
Why universities can report rising research spending while the infrastructure that sustains it becomes financially constrained.
Universities report rising research spending. U.S. higher education R&D grew from about $67 billion in 2013 to nearly $100 billion in 2022, but the financial sustainability of research depends on indirect cost recovery rather than award volume. Federal grants historically reimburse facilities and administrative (F&A) costs at negotiated rates, often between ~30% and >50%, while corporate, state, and philanthropic sponsors frequently reimburse less. The implication is that funding-mix changes can constrain research infrastructure even as total spending increases.
I. How Can University Research Spending Rise While Infrastructure Funding Becomes Constrained?
University research spending can increase while infrastructure funding becomes constrained because indirect cost recovery varies significantly across sponsor types.
Discussion about university research funding increasingly emphasizes diversification. Federal agencies remain the largest source of research funding for universities, but universities have expanded partnerships with industry, philanthropic foundations, and state governments in response to federal budget volatility and declining grant success rates.
Aggregate spending data appears consistent with that interpretation. According to the NSF Higher Education Research and Development survey, total R&D spending at U.S. universities increased from roughly $67 billion in 2013 to nearly $100 billion by 2022. During the same period, nonfederal sources, including industry, state governments, nonprofits, and institutional funds, accounted for a growing share of the expansion.
Viewed only through total spending, the research enterprise appears stable. However, the financial structure of university research depends less on total award volume than on how those awards reimburse the infrastructure required to conduct research.
University research operates through a two-part funding structure. Direct costs pay for project-specific expenses such as research staff, materials, laboratory supplies, and equipment. Indirect costs, commonly referred to as facilities and administrative costs (F&A), support the shared institutional infrastructure required for research activity.
Facilities and administrative costs include laboratory buildings and depreciation, utilities and waste disposal systems, environmental health and safety oversight, institutional review boards, export control compliance, research information technology infrastructure, libraries, and administrative systems used to manage thousands of grants and contracts across an institution. National research policy organizations describe these expenditures as research infrastructure because they support multiple projects and cannot be assigned to a single award.
Federal grants historically reimburse these costs at negotiated institutional rates. At major research universities, negotiated F&A rates commonly range from roughly 30 percent to more than 50 percent of modified total direct costs. An analysis of NIH funding in fiscal year 2024 estimated an average indirect cost rate of approximately 37 percent across institutions of higher education.
These reimbursements finance a substantial portion of the infrastructure required to operate research laboratories and support compliance, administration, and facilities management across universities.
Other sponsors typically reimburse indirect costs at lower levels. Corporate-sponsored research frequently involves negotiated reductions to institutional overhead rates. State-funded research programs often apply capped recovery schedules that fall below federally negotiated rates. Philanthropic foundations commonly reimburse indirect costs at levels around 10 percent to 15 percent, and some sponsors restrict or prohibit indirect recovery entirely.
University policy documents and association reports document these differences. For example, the University of California system reports that many foundations, corporate sponsors, and donors reimburse indirect costs below institutional negotiated rates or exclude categories of infrastructure costs.
Even under existing funding patterns, universities do not fully recover the infrastructure costs associated with research activity. An analysis commissioned by the Association of American Universities and the Council on Governmental Relations estimated that universities under-recovered approximately $6.8 billion in indirect costs in fiscal year 2023. Other analyses using national research expenditure data estimate that universities recover roughly 70 percent of the indirect costs associated with research.
Universities cover the remaining gap through internal cross-subsidies that draw on institutional funds, state appropriations, tuition revenue, and philanthropic resources.
When the composition of research funding shifts toward sponsors that reimburse lower levels of indirect costs, total research spending can continue to rise while the resources available to maintain laboratories, compliance systems, research administration, and other shared infrastructure grow more slowly.
Under these conditions, rising research expenditures do not necessarily produce proportional increases in the financial capacity to sustain research infrastructure.
To continue receiving full-length deep dives each week, upgrade below.
For Group subscriptions and ‘Institutional Access’ options, write to us: hello@intelligencecouncil.com
II. Why Do Changes in Indirect Cost Recovery Centralize Research Governance?
Changes in indirect cost recovery often centralize research governance because research infrastructure costs are relatively fixed and must be managed at the institutional level when sponsor reimbursement varies.
Research infrastructure costs (such as laboratory facilities, utilities, waste management systems, research information technology infrastructure, compliance oversight, and sponsored research administration) operate across entire research portfolios. These systems scale with overall research activity rather than with the subset of projects that reimburse infrastructure at higher rates.
Policy analyses from research associations support this characterization. The Association of Research Libraries and the Council on Governmental Relations describe facilities, compliance systems, and research administration as institutional infrastructure that must be maintained regardless of the reimbursement structure of individual grants.
Because these infrastructure systems persist even when sponsor reimbursement varies, changes in sponsor mix affect institutional budgets rather than individual projects alone.
Financial leadership therefore becomes more involved in evaluating the sustainability of research portfolios. Fiscal analyses of higher education finance increasingly discuss the implications of proposed federal caps on indirect cost reimbursement. Policy commentary surrounding proposed 15 percent caps at agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation has emphasized that institutions with large federal research portfolios could face substantial reductions in infrastructure reimbursement if such caps were implemented.
In these scenarios, university finance leaders must evaluate how changes in reimbursement levels affect institutional budgets that support laboratory facilities, compliance systems, and research administration.
Strategic planning documents also reflect this shift in oversight. Institutional financial sustainability reports increasingly describe central administration and provost offices taking more direct roles in budget allocation, vacancy management, and long-term resource planning. These processes are typically coordinated with chief financial officers and governing boards, reflecting the integration of research economics into broader institutional financial planning.
Universities have also reorganized leadership structures responsible for research partnerships and commercialization.
Executive search analyses report that a growing share of large research universities have created senior leadership roles responsible for coordinating innovation, industry partnerships, and technology commercialization across campus. Estimates from Russell Reynolds Associates suggest that roughly 20 percent to 30 percent of the top fifty U.S. universities employ positions such as Chief Innovation Officer, Vice Chancellor for Innovation and Economic Development, or Vice President for New Ventures.
These roles typically integrate functions that historically operated separately, including technology transfer offices, corporate partnership programs, startup development initiatives, and external innovation engagement.
Universities have also consolidated research support structures under central research leadership. Strategic plans from institutional research offices increasingly describe Offices of Research as coordinating proposal development centers, compliance units, core research facilities, and external partnership programs across multiple colleges and departments.
For example, the Office of Research at Ohio State University describes its role as coordinating research centers, proposal development resources, compliance operations, and external research relations across the university. Similar strategic plans emphasize expanding centralized proposal development hubs and campus-wide research administration training programs to support increasingly complex research portfolios.
These organizational structures enable universities to evaluate research activity at the portfolio level rather than solely through individual departments or investigators.
Research funding decisions therefore incorporate variables beyond scientific merit or investigator opportunity. Funding source, indirect cost recovery levels, partnership structure, and compliance requirements increasingly influence how universities evaluate large proposals and external collaborations.
Corporate-sponsored projects may involve negotiated reductions in overhead rates or more restrictive intellectual property arrangements. State-funded research programs often tie funding to regional economic development objectives, workforce outcomes, or location-specific requirements. Philanthropic research funding may impose restrictions on indirect recovery or limit how overhead funds can be used.
These conditions introduce financial and governance considerations that must be evaluated alongside scientific objectives.
As research portfolios grow and funding structures become more heterogeneous, universities increasingly rely on centralized leadership structures to coordinate these variables. Under these conditions, research administration can evolve from a decentralized support function toward a form of institutional portfolio management in which central research leadership and finance offices evaluate the financial sustainability of research activity across the university.
Upgrade to the ‘Premium’ tier and receive: All premium reports free (PDFs) • Advanced analysis and teardowns • Rapid response intelligence briefs • Deep-dive dossiers