Cost Allocation Plans for Nonprofits: Indirect Rates Explained

Any nonprofit that receives federal funding is required to have a cost allocation plan. The requirement is not a suggestion buried in a grant agreement. It is mandated under the OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200), which governs how federal grant money is administered and how costs charged to federal awards must be documented and supported.

Even organizations that do not receive federal grants benefit from a cost allocation plan, because the same methodology that satisfies a federal auditor also produces more accurate financial statements and better program cost analysis for your board.

This guide explains what a cost allocation plan is, how to choose an indirect cost rate, and how to build a methodology that holds up at audit.

What a Cost Allocation Plan Is

A cost allocation plan is a documented methodology for distributing shared indirect costs across an organization's programs and grants. It answers the question: how do we fairly divide the costs that benefit multiple programs but are not directly attributable to any single one?

Indirect costs include things like the executive director's salary, rent for shared office space, utilities, accounting staff, and information technology. These costs are real and necessary, but they don't belong exclusively to any one program. Without a plan for distributing them, you either undercharge grants (absorbing shared costs in unrestricted funds, which harms your operating budget) or charge them inconsistently, which creates audit exposure.

A cost allocation plan makes the distribution systematic, defensible, and consistent.

Direct Costs vs. Indirect Costs

The first step in building a cost allocation plan is distinguishing between direct and indirect costs.

Direct costs are costs that can be specifically identified with a particular program, grant, or activity. A program coordinator whose time is 100% dedicated to a single grant is a direct cost. Supplies purchased specifically for a program are a direct cost. These are charged to the program without allocation.

Indirect costs are costs that benefit two or more programs and cannot be practically assigned to any single one without allocation. The office lease benefits every program operating out of the building. The CFO's time benefits every program the organization runs. These require allocation.

Some costs that appear direct are actually mixed. A program manager who splits time between two programs has salary that must be allocated between them based on time spent. This is a direct cost that requires allocation, not a true indirect cost, but the accounting treatment is similar.

Indirect Cost Rate Options

Organizations with federal grants have three main options for how to handle indirect costs.

The De Minimis Rate

The Uniform Guidance allows organizations that have never had a negotiated indirect cost rate to use a de minimis rate of 10% applied to modified total direct costs (MTDC). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, patient care costs, tuition, and the first $25,000 of subawards.

The de minimis rate is simple and requires no negotiation with the government. It is available to most nonprofits receiving federal grants for the first time. The trade-off is that 10% may not cover your actual indirect costs. If your real indirect cost rate is 22%, using the de minimis rate means you are subsidizing federal programs with unrestricted funds.

Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA)

Organizations with higher actual indirect costs can negotiate an indirect cost rate with their cognizant federal agency. The result is a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, known as a NICRA, which certifies the approved rate and the base it applies to.

A NICRA requires submitting an indirect cost rate proposal, which is a detailed analysis of your costs, allocation methodology, and financial statements. Federal auditors review the proposal and agree on a rate. Once approved, that rate applies to all your federal grants during the period covered by the agreement.

Rates must be renewed periodically. Renewal requires submitting updated cost data, because your actual indirect rate can shift as your organization grows, adds programs, or changes staffing.

Program-Specific Allocation

Some organizations allocate indirect costs program by program rather than using a single organization-wide rate. This approach works when programs have very different cost profiles and a single rate would be materially inaccurate for some of them.

This method is more complex to document and defend but produces the most accurate results for organizations with diverse program portfolios.

Building Your Cost Allocation Methodology

A cost allocation plan documents three things: which costs are being allocated, what the allocation base is, and how the rate is calculated.

Step 1: Identify your indirect cost pool. List all costs that benefit multiple programs and cannot be directly charged to any single one. This typically includes executive leadership, accounting and finance, human resources, IT, facilities, and general administration.

Step 2: Choose an allocation base. The allocation base is the metric you use to distribute indirect costs proportionally. Common bases include:

• Direct salaries and wages (most common; reflects where your people time goes)
• Total direct costs (broad but simple)
• Square footage (useful for facilities specifically)
• Headcount
• Modified total direct costs (required for federal grants using the de minimis rate)

The allocation base must have a logical relationship to how the indirect costs are actually incurred. You cannot use a base that produces a favorable result without economic justification. Federal auditors will examine whether the selected base is reasonable and consistently applied.

Step 3: Calculate the rate. Divide total indirect costs by the total allocation base to get the rate. Apply that rate to each program's allocation base amount to distribute indirect costs.

Step 4: Document the methodology. Write it down. The cost allocation plan is a written document, not a spreadsheet. It must describe the methodology in enough detail that someone who didn't build it can replicate it. It should include a certification by the organization's chief financial officer or authorized representative.

Step 5: Apply it consistently. Applying the same methodology every period is as important as choosing the right methodology in the first place. Auditors look for evidence of consistency. Switching allocation bases from year to year without documented justification raises questions about whether the plan is designed to produce accurate results or to maximize reimbursement.

OMB Uniform Guidance Requirements

Organizations receiving federal awards must comply with 2 CFR Part 200, specifically Subpart E, which covers cost principles.

Key requirements for cost allocability:

• Costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award.
• Costs must be allocable to the award under the principles in Subpart E.
• Costs must be consistent with policies applied to other work of the organization.
• Costs must be adequately documented.

"Allocable" under Uniform Guidance means the cost benefits the award and is distributed proportionally based on the relative benefit received. You cannot charge a cost to a federal award simply because it is allowable. The cost must also be incurred specifically to advance the objectives of that award, or be a shared cost distributed proportionally.

Unallowable costs are explicitly excluded from federal reimbursement regardless of your methodology. Common unallowable costs include entertainment, lobbying, bad debt expense, fines and penalties, and contributions to reserves or endowments. If these costs appear in your indirect cost pool, they must be excluded before calculating the rate.

Single Audit Implications

Organizations that expend $750,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal year are subject to a Single Audit, also called a Uniform Guidance audit. The Single Audit includes testing of your cost allocation methodology as part of the assessment of federal program compliance.

Common findings related to cost allocation in Single Audits:

• Using an allocation base without documented justification for why it reflects the benefit received
• Applying the allocation methodology inconsistently across periods
• Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool
• Failing to update the cost allocation plan when organizational structure changes significantly

The surest way to avoid these findings is to have a written plan, apply it every period, document the calculation, and review it annually.

Where Manual Processes Break Down

Calculating and applying indirect cost rates manually across multiple grants involves exporting salary data, building allocation schedules in Excel, manually distributing costs to each grant budget, and reconciling the distributed amounts to the GL. If any step uses outdated data or applies slightly different logic than the period before, the allocation is wrong.

The error risk compounds when staff changes. The person who built the spreadsheet model knows the nuances. The person who inherits it during an audit often doesn't.

In sherbertOSOS, cost allocation rules are configured once in the allocation engine. Indirect cost rates, allocation bases, and distribution targets are stored as structured rules, not formulas in a workbook. Each period close executes the allocation automatically, distributes costs to the correct funds and grants, and creates the journal entries in the GL. The result is auditable, consistent, and documentable with a single report rather than a stack of spreadsheets.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the de minimis indirect cost rate?

The Uniform Guidance allows nonprofits without a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement to use a 10% de minimis rate applied to modified total direct costs. This rate is available to most nonprofits that have never had a negotiated rate and is the simplest option for organizations just beginning to receive federal grants.

Do I need a cost allocation plan if I don't receive federal grants?

Not legally, but it is still sound practice. Having a documented allocation methodology ensures consistent expense distribution, produces more accurate program cost data for your board, and prepares you for future federal grant opportunities without scrambling to build a methodology under deadline.

How often should a cost allocation plan be updated?

Review it annually. Update it whenever there are significant changes to your organizational structure, programs, or funding mix. If you hire a new department or launch a major new program, the cost pool and allocation base may need to change.

What is MTDC?

Modified total direct costs is the base used for the de minimis indirect cost rate under Uniform Guidance. It includes direct salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials, supplies, services, travel, and the first $25,000 of each subaward. It excludes equipment, capital expenditures, patient care charges, tuition, rental costs for off-site facilities, and amounts above $25,000 on subcontracts.

Can we negotiate a higher indirect cost rate than our actual costs?

No. The negotiated rate is based on actual costs documented in your indirect cost rate proposal. Federal auditors review the supporting data and approve only a rate that reflects your actual methodology and cost structure.

The Bottom Line

A cost allocation plan is not administrative overhead. It is the documentation that justifies every shared cost you charge to a restricted program or federal grant. Without one, every indirect cost in your restricted programs is potentially at risk if an auditor asks you to explain the basis for the charge.

Build the plan. Document it in writing. Apply it every period without deviation. Review it when your organization changes. And make sure your accounting system can execute the allocation automatically, because the manual version introduces the kind of inconsistency that cost allocation plans are specifically designed to prevent.

→ Subscribe to the sherbertOS newsletter for more guidance on grant compliance, cost allocation, and nonprofit financial operations.