; SYLVER IMAGE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES; HARRIS WELKER ARCHITECTS; SPEEGLE DAVIS: ARCHITECTURE; STUDIO G ARCHITECTS ; ALLOY PROJECTS; ROBERT E. M STAR SCHOOLS; OSBORN; LEROY STREET STUDIO/HESTER STREET COLLABORATIVE; MODULUS; SCHEMATA WORKSHOP; MOREMAS; CORE ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN; H UNABRIDGED ARCHITECTURE PLLC; KUTLESA/HERNANDEZ ARCHITECTS; SYMMETRY FIRST ARCHITECTS, LLC; DRIVER-RYAN ARCHITECTS PA; ARCHITECTURAL WORK ECTS; KAYA K. DOYLE, AIA; BDESIGN; SHIFT DESIGN STUDIO; ABRAHAMS ARCHITECTS; HKS, INC.; HYPHAE DESIGN LAB; STONHAUS.ARK; THE OPEN ATELIER; REIF/SHA HITECTS; PELLETIER + SCHAAR; THE MILLER/HULL PARTNERSHIP; CAST ARCHITECTURE; PAULSEN ARCHITECTS; HALL BARNUM LUCCHESI ARCHITECTS; STUDIO S SQU ES LIMITED; THE LANDAU PARTNERSHIP; ROBERT CONNOR & ASPPPSOCIATES; SAUCIER + FLYNN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS; DAVID BAKER ARCHITECTS; TYPSIM INDU NTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC.; WILLIAMS PARTNERSHIP: ARCHITECTURE, INC.; M. SCOTT BALL DESIGN, LLC; R-10 DESIGN CONSULTING; LARC, INC.; MW STEELE GROUP, ; MOTIONSPACE ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN PLLC; AUSTIN VEUM ROBBINS PARTNERS; KROIZ ARCHITECTURE; ELLEN PULNER HUNT ARCHITECTS, INC.; KR KOHLHAAS; E ELLNERPLUS; JAMES D. MARSHALL JR., AIA; PERKINS+WILL - CHICAGO; RANNEY MICHAELS ARCHITECTS; STUDIO A INTERNATIONAL; MEYER, SCHERER & ROCKCAST IP; MBI|K2M ARCHITECTURE; HOUSER WALKER ARCHITECTURE, LLC; SQUARE FEET STUDIO; STUDIO LUZ ARCHITECTS, LTD.; MCMONIGAL ARCHITECTS, LLC; PV+R; RO ORADO ARCHITECTURE PARTNERSHIP; JOHN SHAFER & ASSOC.; ARCHITECTURE+; OPEN HOUSE WORKS, LLC; BLINK-LAB ARCHITECTURE; ORGANICARCHITECT; LEE + ARCHITECTS; PAUL MINOR, AIA; COATES DESIGN ARCHITECTS; WOODBINE STUDIO; SWETT ASSOCIATES; BRAVE / ARCHITECTURE; LAKE ARCHITECTURAL; MARPILLER WAY GROUP; MONTE STOTT & ASSOCIATES; SCHWARTZ-KINNARD ARCHITECTS; CENTERPOINT BUILDERS, LTD.; LAI ARCHITECTS; BRENNAN+COMPANY ARCHITECTS; M ARY BERNSTEIN ARCHITECT; GRACE PG DESIGN GROUP LLC; TIM HALL ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATION; CMG LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE; ELLIS ARCHITECTS, INC.; B EY INTERIOR & ARCHITECTURAL PHOTOGRAPHY; BWA ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING; JOHN LINAM JR., ARCHITECT, PLLC; PYATOK ARCHITECTS, INC.; COLUMBIA ASSOC RIOR DESIGN INC.; BROWN & KEENER BRESSI; JB|RS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN PLANNING; CITIZEN DESIGN STUDIO; FOU TURE; MENDEDESIGN; LUND WRIGHT OPSAHL-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING; BREUKER DESIGN, LLC; KELL RUHL WALKER ARCHITECTS; RM SOVICH ARCHITECTURE; OPTIMAL DESIGN GROUP; HWAI YANG MAYER SATTLER-SMITH; SERA ARCHITECTS; PFAFFMANN + ASSOCIATES; DESIGNFLUEN GROUP, LLC; CHARLES PAUL GOEBEL, ARCHITECT; BASIL WALTER ARCHITECTS; L THOMPSON, ARCHITECT, P.A.; DESIGN PLUS LLC; WALLACE ROBERTS & TO INC.; TIGHE ARCHITECTURE; THINKSMART PLANNING INC; INTERFACE PAOLI ARCHITECTS; BRAWER & HAUPTMAN, ARCHITECTS; VIRID STUDIO; SMP ARCHITECTS; BOWER LEWIS THROWER ARCH STUDIO; CICADA ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING, INC.; HUN DESIGN; KLINGSTUBBINS; FRANCIS CAUFFMAN; FR PLANNERS INC.; MGA PARTNERS, ARCHITECTS; ASSOCIATES, LLC; DESIGN FREEDOM, INC.; A ASSOCIATES, PSC; IN-PRINT COMMUNIC 450 ARCHITECTS; STUDIO FIVE ARCHIT DESIGNS; RONALD J. KARDON, ARC ARCHITECTURE WORKSHOP; KUR ARCHITECTS; ANDREJKO + ASS ARCHITECTS, INC; WOODRO TECTS; ROCKFORD ARCHI FLEMMING ARCHITECT; MOTO ALLEY & ABEY; TANTS, INC.; INTERA KLEIN AND HOFFM SANCE ARCHITEC ARCHITECTURE R.D.S.; PINNA STUDIO ARC ARCHITECT MANCINI DOWLING TECTS; TURE; S 8; COZ 2015 DESG EN’TE SHEL WIN STE ARC The state of the pro bono movement in PA KA the US architecture and design industry, JO reporting from The 1% Firm and Nonprofit TE surveys from 2007 to 2013. MA TU AS HIL SEE STU AIA;
SOCIAL IMPACT DESIGN PERFORMANCE REPORT
$60MM+ pro bono value 18,000+ designers 1,400+ firms 900+ nonprofits ...all serving millions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-2 Introduction
1+ surveys designers & nonprofits
3-4 Pro Bono Motivation Why designers of the built environment do pro bono work. 5-6 Pro Bono Impact How firms engage staff and vet project opportunities. 7-8 Nonprofit Service Areas Communities most inneed secure pro bono design services. 9-10 Impact: Architecture and Design Industry Evaluating pro bono outcomes. Small projects make big community impacts. 11-12 Pro Bono Integration It’s about the financial burden, leadership buyin, and business goals. 13-14 Pro Bono Commitment Most firms do more than 1%, while navigating considerable limitations and barriers. 15-16 Pro Bono Implementation How firms engage staff and vet project opportunities. 18 Methodology and Credits
From 2005 to 2013, eight surveys queried design firms that contribute 1% or more of working hours to pro bono service and their nonprofit clients through the 1+ program. These firms are located across the US and are representative of the design industry as a whole. While some of the largest firms in the industry participated, the majority are small offices with less than nine fulltime employees that make less than $250,000 in revenue annually. Designers first engage in pro bono activities as a result of their core values and the awareness raised by 1+. • The most important variable for selecting pro bono projects is social relevance. • Firms primarily engage in short term projects, that take 3-6 months, such as facilities needs assessments and conceptual or schematic design. • The number of years firms have been engaged in pro bono work is rising, increasing from 33% in 2011 to 38% of firms with more than 10 years of experience in 2013. Firms align projects with traditional vetting processes and are strategic about completing pro bono projects as a way to meet firm goals. These goals include a firm’s ability to expand into new markets and increased ability to recruit and retain employees. Available staff time limits firms’ pro bono work. Firms are taking fewer pro bono projects and smaller scopes of work. Nearly all principals engage in pro bono design, while fewer firms employ all levels of staff. Pro bono work impacts individual designers, the firms they work for, and the benefitting communities. They include designers earlier in their projects as a tool for capital campaigns and to improve a project’s chances of implementation.
INTRODUCTION 1% was just the beginning. 1+ firms give back to the community far beyond that minimum commitment. The 1% is now 1+ This change is inspired by the fact that most participating firms contribute more than 1% of their time to benefit pro bono causes and actively collaborate with multiple partners in order to realize these projects. Formerly known as The 1% program, 1+ is a first-of-its kind national campaign for firms to pledge a minimum 1% of their billable hours to pro bono service. The program was created in 2002 and launched the standalone website in 2005. The program defines pro bono service to be professional services rendered in the public interest without expectation of a fee or with a significant reduction in fees. As of 2007, the program expanded to provide firms with project opportunities from 501(c)(3) nonprofits in need of design services. The scale and scope of these projects vary from conceptual design materials through to implemented renovations or new construction.
By 2015, 1+ participants include more than 1,300 firms across the globe with almost 18,000 participating designers, contributing over $60M of pro bono services annually. These services are provided to the over 900 nonprofits registered in the 1+ as well as organizations that firms partner with on their own. The 1+ is open to all designers of the built environment, including architects, interior designers, and landscape architects, engineers and allied designers.
The following report covers survey responses gathered in 2013 from 1+ participating firms and nonprofits for the previous twelve months, unless otherwise indicated.
THE 1% GROWTH, THE FUTURE IS 1+ 1800
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
1500
1200
900
600 DESIGN FIRMS NONPROFITS
300
0 2002 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 2013
2014
2015
2016
Introduction
2
PRO BONO MOTIVATION Why do designers of the built environment do pro bono work? The primary reason firms join 1+ is to give back to the community. Do architecture and design industries have a responsibility “to give back?” Is providing service in the public interest simply the right thing to do? We know it feels good, and can even be good for business through non-financial returns on investment. These are just a few of the reasons why designers and firms take on pro bono service.
CREATIVE OPPORTUNITIES
Many firms report that their most creative work emerges from the positive friction introduced by new project types and unfamiliar programs, often involving pro bono projects.
RECRUITMENT & RETENTION
Pro bono projects give firms a chance to engage and inspire every employee, design and non-design staff alike. People want to work for firms that demonstrate a commitment to socially-relevant work.
LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
Many pro bono projects provide opportunities for collaboration with artists, government agencies, suppliers, and even other firms.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Advocating for a cause is an effective way to demonstrate your firm’s values and sends a signal of a healthy and mature business.
PERSONAL SATISFACTION
Pro bono projects can end up being some of the most rewarding work that you are involved in, connecting you with the most noble values of our profession.
Firms consistently report that they are driven to do pro bono work primarily as a way to give back to their community. In addition, core values and awareness raised by the 1+ program are the primary motivators for firms initiating pro bono work. Public Architecture raises awareness around the issues, impact, opportunities and challenges of pro bono work through 1+ initiatives such as the Social Impact Design Awards, Pro Bono Leaders Summit, and its ongoing project case study series. Moreover, 1+ partnerships with professional associations and those focused on the larger pro bono movement like the Taproot Foundation and A Billion + Change have helped spread these values.
Boeddeker Park
The contextual complexities surrounding Boeddeker Park require our utmost sensitivity and care in making design decisions. For these reasons, the experience has been phenomenal and exceptionally rewarding.
Š Matthew Millman
Brian Milman Partner, WRNS Studio
Pro Bono Motivation
4
PRO BONO IMPACT Pro bono service impacts individual designers lending their expertise, the firms they work for, and the benefitting community. More than 50% of 1+ nonprofits sought designers’ expertise to realize a high quality project or to improve the chance of their project implementation.
TOP WAYS THAT 1+ PROJECTS IMPACT NONPROFITS AND COMMUNITIES LEAST IMPACT
MOST IMPACT
1
Social services, arts and education represent the top nonprofit service areas in the 1+ program, which aligns with firms’ top pro bono interests. Over 60% of 1+ nonprofits want the 1+ program to expand interior design services; interest in landscape architecture services nearly doubled from 2011 to 2013.
5
INCREASED NUMBER OF PEOPLE WE SERVE BETTER SERVE MISSION IMPROVED VISIBILITY IN COMMUNITY IMPROVED CLIENT MORALE
Nonprofits’ service areas and firms’ most desired clienttypes are a close match. Top nonprofit concentrations are social services, arts and education and firms’ top pro bono interests are in the arts and culture, civic or public space and education sector. Most often, nonprofits report seeking professional design services to realize high quality projects and improve their chance of implementation. Over half of nonprofits report that the pro bono services they received through the 1+ are valued less than $15,000. A relatively small budget aligns with the design service needs of nonprofits participating in the 1+, who frequently request preliminary design services to kick start their projects.
PRO BONO SERVICES THAT NONPROFITS ARE MOST INTERESTED TO SEE EXPANDED INTERIOR DESIGN ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL GRAPHICS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUSTAINABILITY EXPERTISE ENGINEERING SERVICES
62% 51% 43% 42% 36% 36%
Nonprofits are interested in the 1+ program goal to grow the current service offerings, to become more inclusive of all designers of the built environment. This demand underscores the efforts of the 1+ to partner with professional associations on a national level and encourage all designers of the built environment to make a pro bono pledge. Designers have an opportunity to build their professional skills while supporting their core values. The experience of Anne Fougeron of San Francisco-based Fougeron Architecture epitomizes this kind of impact. Fougeron’s belief in women’s reproductive rights is the foundation of her pro bono work for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. The partnership began in the 1990s at a time when Planned Parenthood experienced heightened protest activity and violence. For Fougeron, working with Planned Parenthood has fed her soul. From a professional perspective, it has also allowed the firm to gain expertise in healthcare design, which opened up a new market and is now a core part of their practice.
REASONS NONPROFITS SEEK PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
54% HIGHER CHANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION 51% 47% LICENSED PROFESSIONAL REQUIRED INCREASE PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 30% TO REALIZE A HIGH QUALITY PROJECT
Firms report that pro bono work has an impact on business goals—from market expansion, staffing, PR and marketing, to community relations—further discussed in Pro Bono Integration. These non-financial goals are a major contributing factor to firms’ pro bono work. In addition to firm-wide impact, nearly all firms report that their pro bono work has positively contributed to their local community. Community impact is the primary reason why designers engage in this work. The 1+ nonprofits report their pro bono projects have allowed them better serve their mission and the outcome has increased the number of people they serve. Additionally, these projects have greatly increased nonprofits’ visibility in the community. To provide a benefit to firms, many nonprofits acknowledge their design partners like any donor at a comparable level, based on the value of the pro bono services provided.
Pro Bono Impact
6
NONPROFIT SERVICE AREAS >100MM people are served by 1+ nonprofits. The survey reports 15% of nonprofits serve 9MM people. This can be projected to estimate the people served by all 1+ nonprofits. Low income communities are the primary service focus.
Nonprofit needs and firm interests are most aligned in arts and culture housing and healthcare, while firms seek more opportunities to serve environmental and civic/public space service areas.
5%
5% 6%
34% of nonprofit budgets are over $2MM and 25% are under $50K, providing 1+ firms with a diversity of small to large nonprofit partners.
HEALTH
19%
ENVIRONMENT
SOCIAL SERVICES
CIVIC
8% RELIGION
NONPROFIT SERVICE AREAS
17% OTHER
10% HOUSING
15% EDUCATION
15% ARTS AND CULTURE
COMPARISON OF NONPROFIT PRIMARY SERVICE AREA AND FIRMS’ INTERESTS FIRMS' INTERESTS
NONPROFIT PRIMARY SERVICE AREA
ARTS & CULTURE
75%
15%
CIVIC/PUBLIC SPACE
63%
6%
EDUCATION
59%
16%
ENVIRONMENT
59%
5%
HOUSING
56%
10%
SOCIAL SERVICES
50%
19%
RELIGION
41%
8%
HEALTHCARE
28%
5%
APPROXIMATE TOTAL BENEFICIARIES OF ~433 NONPROFITS IN 2013
2013 NONPROFIT BENEFICIARIES
~83MM Indirect Beneficiaries ~16MM Direct Beneficiaries 0
20MM
40MM
60MM
80MM
100MM
NONPROFIT BENEFICIARIES
52% 49%
LOW INCOME OR HOMELESS CHILDREN OR YOUNG ADULTS
39%
ETHNIC MINORITIES
30%
SENIORS DISABLED OR ILL
24% Nonprofit Service Areas
8
IMPACT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN INDUSTRY Among firms registered with 1+, 31% are women-owned and 12% are minority-owned. The 1+ has 4x womenowned and 3x minority-owned than reported in the AIA 2012 Survey. 1+ firms with the largest percentage pro bono services have revenues <$150K. 1% is no longer enough. A majority of 1+ firms do 2-5% pro bono.
In 2014, 60% of ARCHITECT 50 top firms were a part of the 1+ program. 5 of the top 10 largest US firms in 2014 are 1+ members, according to Building Design and Construction. 61% of 1+ firms have been doing pro bono work for over 5 years.
PERCENT OF PRO BONO WORK
FIRM REVENUE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE PERCENT OF PRO BONO WORK 10%+
17
2
1
0
0
5-10%
18
4
5
3
1
2-5%
15
21
11
10
7
3
2
4
10
5
21
5
2
3
6
< $150K
$151-500K
$501-999K
$1-5MM
$5MM
1%
< 1%
TOTAL FIRM ANNUAL REVENUE
12%
UNDER 2 YEARS
22%
38%
NUMBER OF YEARS FIRMS HAVE DONE PRO BONO WORK
2-5 YEARS
MORE THAN 10 YEARS
23%
10 YEARS
PERCENT OF DIFFERENT SIZED FIRMS IN 2012 40% 35%
PERCENT OF FIRMS
30%
1+ SURVEY
25%
AIA 2012 SURVEY
20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
1
2-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100+
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN THE U.S. Impact: Architecture And Design Industry
10
PRO BONO INTEGRATION Integration is strong, yet policies and procedures, and dedicated structures leave room for improvement. Growing pains contribute to the pro bono design movement maturation. The quality of pro bono work and feebased work are the same for the vast majority of firms. Top outcomes of pro bono work include the positive contributions to local communities, improved firm culture and reputation. ROI from pro bono work, while nonfinancial, contributes to designers’ interest to take on new projects.
Many firms try to advance both their creative and commercial goals through their full-fee projects. Surveyed firms value creative projects over high revenue projects, although both are important firm-wide goals. At the same time, firms report that there may not be enough time to pursue creative ideas. Balancing these priorities can be challenging for firms, but in the right circumstances pro bono work can address potential gaps. Using the standards of firm goals to assess pro bono opportunities benefits pro bono work by subjecting it to the structure and rigor of traditional design work. Firms report that pro bono work has the potential to lead to new markets and services. This is exemplified in STUDIOS Architecture’s workplace design for Kiva, a micro-lending organization. Through a partnership with this wellrespected organization, STUDIOS expanded their portfolio and became more marketable in the social sector. Pro bono work can help set a firm apart as the economy improves. Reported as a driver and outcome of a firm’s pro bono commitment, doing this work can help a firm improve its ability to recruit and retain employees. Firms are noticing that designers want to give back to their communities professionally and are using employee interest as a gauge when selecting pro bono projects. The 2013 data supports a higher level approach to pro bono work. Employees take pro bono projects as seriously as feegenerating projects. With quality, also comes the ability to present pro bono projects in portfolios, websites and client presentations.
VARIABLES IN SELECTING A PRO BONO PROJECT
POSITIVE OUTCOMES OF FIRMS’ PRO BONO PRACTICE
LEAST IMPORTANT
LEAST IMPROVED
1
SOCIAL RELEVANCE CLIENT’S MISSION PROJECT TYPE PERSONAL CONNECTION DESIGN OPPORTUNITY
MOST IMPORTANT 5
1
CONTRIBUTION TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FIRM CULTURE FIRM REPUTATION FIRM CREATIVITY
EMPLOYEE INTEREST
EMPLOYEE SKILLS
IMPLEMENTATION
JOB SATISFACTION
PR VALUE
MOST IMPROVED 5
Š Sharon Risedorph
KIVA HEADQUARTERS
The project has received positive press and has brought a new momentum to the pro bono program at STUDIOS. Completing a project through our pro bono program has helped STUDIOS upper management identify the value on mulitple levels. Andrew Clemenza Associate, STUDIOS Architecture Pro Bono Integration
12
PRO BONO COMMITMENT Pro bono service trends down as the economy recovers and business improves for 1+ firms that are still wary of recent hardships. Many 1+ firms are running leaner operations and are strained to staff pro bono projects.
The amount of time dedicated to pro bono work is affected by the economic climate of the architecture and design industry. During the peak of the recession in the late 2000s, when significant downsizing and fewer full-fee projects was a common reality, many firms increased their commitments to pro bono service.
Financial constraints remain the biggest limitation for 1+ firms’ ability to take on pro bono projects. Even with these constraints, 1% is no longer enough, which inspired the program’s name change in 2015. The 1% is now 1+.
Many firms are putting their pro bono work on hold resulting in 25% of firms not completing a pro bono project in the twelve months previous to 2013, compared to 2% of firms that did not complete a project in the last twelve months, according to the 2009 1% Firm Survey. Besides fewer completed projects, a smaller number of firms had all of their staff work on pro bono projects in 2013 versus 2011.
EXTENT TO WHICH THE FOLLOWING ISSUES LIMIT FIRMS’ PRO BONO PRACTICE LEAST 1
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS
As the effects of the economic downturn are now diminishing, there has been an overall decrease in pro bono service. Firms reported a significant driver of this change is due to the decrease in available staff time. As seen in the 2012 AIA Survey Report, firms are hesitant to fill full-time positions until there is further stabilization in the construction industry. In the 1+, this correlates with the crunch on staff time as the second most limiting factor for firm’s pro bono work. The only factor more limiting has been and continues to be financial constraints.
MOST 5
STAFF WHO TYPICALLY WORK ON PRO BONO PROJECTS
STAFF TIME AVAILABILITY
PRINCIPALS AND PARTNERS
95%
PROJECT TYPE
JUNIOR DESIGN STAFF
60%
SENIOR DESIGN STAFF
55%
MARKETING STAFF
15%
MANAGERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
19%
SELECTION PROCESS LIABILITY CONCERNS PRO BONO CLIENT MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKER BUY-IN
Š First & Last Name
FRESH MOVES MOBILE MARKET
From pro bono work, we have seen a direct increase in network and market-access, which we might not have otherwise seen because of our firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size and the scale of these projects. Katherine Darnstadt Founder and Principal, Latent Design Pro Bono Commitment
14
PRO BONO IMPLEMENTATION 1+ firms report a variety of approaches to project management and are actively experimenting with the sustainability of pro bono practice. 60% of 1+ firms provided 2% or more in pro bono hours in the last 12 months. Nearly 1/3 of firms did less than 1%.
Based on a 40-hour work week, 1% of annual billable hours amounts to just 20 hours per person per year. In relation to their regular fee-generating work, many firms report that their pro bono work accounts for more than 1%, a consistent trend since the 1% surveys began in 2007.
Just over 10% of services lead to construction documents, while 1/3 of pro bono service concludes at conceptual or schematic phases.
The 1+ program tracks the industryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collective pro bono commitment as well each participating firmsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; pro bono pledge through a percentage of billable time. In defining their pro bono models, a strong average of firms report that they manage pro bono projects just like fee-generating work, using contracts, schedules and tracking systems. Yet notably, fewer firms require a percentage of employee time to be dedicated towards pro bono work.
1+ firms look for social relevance in their pro bono projects, and mostly provide partial services to nonprofit clients. 38% of 1+ firms engaged all staff on a pro bono project in the last year, although 11% of 1+ firms had no staff working on a pro bono project, a percentage that has doubled since 2011.
Since 2007, social relevance is the most important variable for firms when vetting new pro bono opportunities. The results also show the importance for firms to assess staff interest when weighing the design opportunity and potential to expand capacity. Pro bono projects are twice as likely to be limited to partial services versus full services. The partial services provided are primarily conceptual or schematic design, while predesign services such as facilities needs assessments are also common. Moreover in 2013, 20% of projects posted to the 1+ matching system solely requested design services to create capital campaign materials. These metrics point out that many nonprofits are in need of well-designed resources to kick-start their project vision and support fundraising campaigns. As reported in the 1+ Nonprofit Survey in 2013, 45% of pro bono projects were completed within three to six months from the time of the confirmed match. Therefore, a large number of pro bono projects are relatively short engagements.
STAFFING PRO BONO PROJECTS
PERCENT OF FIRMS
40 30 20 10 0
0%
1-25%
26-50%
51-99%
100%
PERCENT OF STAFF THAT WORKED ON A PRO BONO PROJECT IN THE LAST YEAR
PERCENT OF PRO BONO WORK 100
PERCENT OF FIRMS
80
60
40
20
0
2007
2008
<1%
2009
1%
2011
2%
2013
>2%
Pro Bono Implementation
16
METHODOLOGY AND CREDITS
Public Architecture surveyed the 1+ program participating firms in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2013, and the nonprofits in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Surveys were conducted online through Qualtrics and distributed to all participants via email. The last survey was open April to October 2013 and each survey covers information for the previous 12 months. The response rate received for the 2013 Firm Survey was 25% and the 2013 Nonprofit Survey was15%. Beginning in 2009, 1+ collaborated with Lakshmi Ramarajan of the Harvard Business School to create and administer these surveys in addition to contributing to the analysis in the resulting reports. This resulted in an expansion of the 1+ Firm Survey in 2009 to be more comprehensive and cover a firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s:
PRO BONO HISTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE 1+ AND ITS MATCHING PROCESS PRO BONO PURSUITS IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS PRO BONO MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PRO BONO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLETION 2013 survey respondents were entered into a raffle, made possible by the generous contributions of Humanscale and Coalesse. The nonprofit and firm giveaways respectively included: Diffrient Smart Chair by Humanscale Hosu Lounge by Coalesse Credits This report is licensed by Public Architecture under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Share-Alike 3.0 United States License. The report is researched and written by Neha Bhargava and Amy Ress, and designed by Cindy Jian and Rhea Bautista. Thanks to John Peterson and board member Lakshmi Ramarajan for their assistance. This report would not be possible without the support of New Sector Alliance and their RISE Fellowship as well as The Architecture & Community Design (ARCD) Program at the University of San Francisco.
State of the pro bono movement in the US architecture and design industry, reporting from the 1+ Firm and Nonprofit surveys from 2007 to 2013.
18
BIRTH CHOICE SAN MARCOS; BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LAKE COUNTY; HOMEAID A WORKER JUSTICE; NEW TRADITIONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; LEAP TEMS; NEXTSTEP FITNESS, INC.; INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP ACADEMY OF HOUSE; FAMILY CONNECTIONS; FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH; BILL WILSON GRADUATES; GROWTH & LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES (GLO); HOMEAID SAN DIEGO; MOUNT LEARNING SYSTEMS; NEXTSTEP FITNESS, IN COMPANY; EXCELSIOR FAMILY CONNECTIONS; MIR HARLEM RBI & THE DREAM CHARTER SCHOOL; FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN NEW YORK; HOMEAID CH COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER; RICHMOND DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER; RYTHER CHILD CENT SPEECH CENTER OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; HAMDARD CENTER FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; COALIT ARAB, ASIAN, EUROPEAN AND LATINO IMMIGRANTS OF ILLINOIS; UNALASKA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP; TRYON LIFE DETROIT CRISTO REY HIGH SCHOOL; CHICAGO YOUTH CENTERS; EARTH ROOFS IN THE SAHEL; CABRINI GREEN LEGAL FOREST HISTORICAL SOCIETY; COMMUNITY VOCATIONAL ENTERPRISES; CASA OF LINN COUNTY, INC.; WEST SUBURBAN P NETWORK OF EVANSTON; COMMUNITY CLINIC CONSORTIUM; THE HARLEM SCHOOL OF THE ARTS; WORLD SAVVY; HABITAT F BAY; BRIGHTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL; ALCATRAZ ALUMNI ASSOCIATION INC.; GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SAN FRANC AND MARIN COUNTIES; NEW YORK YOUTH SYMPHONY; COMMON GROUND; HOUSING NANTUCKET; WONDERLAND DEVELOPMENTA KITCHEN; HOMEWARD BOUND OF MARIN; MARTINEZ OPERA CONTRA COSTA; EXQUISITE OPPORTUNITIES, INC; BMS FAMILY HEALTH C SEATTLE SENIOR CENTER; PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE; SITIKE COUNSELING CENTER; YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS UMBRELLA, INC. (Y.O.U.); HOM CENTER; CENTER FOR ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION; CHILDREN IN NEED OF HUGS; WAKEFIELD THEATRE COMPANY; NATIONAL LATINO EDU ILIAS, INC.; YOUTH LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE; ODYSSEY WORLD INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICES; FULL CIRCLE FARM; NORTHWEST INTE TION; THE CENTER FOR URBAN PEACE NEW DHARMA COMMUNITY; SAN FRANCISCO JEWISH FILM FESTIVAL; FIRST FAMILY CHURCH; PARENT T TON CHILDREN; CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING; BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE; UNITY PARENTING AND COUNSELING, INC. THEATER; ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE; BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY (BOSS); JOB WORK DEVELOPMENT, INC.; SAN F ALLIANCE; SOUTH BRONX FOOD COOPERATIVE; YOUTH OUTREACH SERVICES; THE ADDICTION REFERRAL CENTER; GENERATION Y.E.S.- YOUTH EXCEL BERKELEY PATH WANDERERS ASSOCIATION; COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER (CYC); MARINSPACE; HAVE DREAMS; NU ALEXANDER MASON ENDOWMENT ZOOLOGICAL PARK, INC.; ABODE SERVICES; MONUMENT FUTURES; ARCHITECTS WITHOUT BORDERS - SEATTLE; LOUISIANA INSTITUTE FOR BUILDING TE SAFETY; BREATHE CALIFORNIA, GGPHP; THE MARTHANNIE SCHOOL; KEEP INDIANAPOLIS BEAUTIFUL; BEST LITTLE RABBIT, RODENT & FERRET HOUSE; HE CAMPAIGN; INDIA BASIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; STREET-LEVEL YOUTH MEDIA; ABUNDANT LIFE UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF AMERICA; NORTHPOINT HARVEY BROOKS MOTIVATION & DEV. FOUNDATION; PACIFIC LIFELINE; THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND; NORTHEAST SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION, INC NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYGARDEN; ST. ALBANS CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; FEDERATION OF PROTESTANT WELFARE AGENCIES; UN CHASHAMA, INC; SAINT TERESA COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EMPOWERMENT; JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF GREATER CONEY ISLAND, INC.; DIXIE SCHO TION; COLLEGE PREP AND ARCHITECTURAL ACADEMY; URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL; MH TOBIAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; 91.7 KALW LOCAL PUBLIC RADIO; ALAME TIVE; DELAWARE KENYA ASSOCIATION; THE WOMEN’S COLLECTIVE; INNER-CITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND; BLUE GARGOYLE COMMUNITY SERVICES; HAWAII HABITAT ASSOC.; MERCY CENTER; UNITED WAY OF THE BAY AREA; PENNY HARRIS FOUNDATION INC; EAST BAY LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION; AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCH ACCION; LIGHTHOUSE CLASSICAL HOMESCHOOLER’S ACADEMY, INC.; HARVEST OUTREACH MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL; BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPME NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR VISUALLY HANDICAPPED; CONNECTIONS; BISHOP MORA SALESIAN HIGH SCHOOL; RISING STAR CHILDREN’S MUSICAL THEATRE TRO MUSEUM OF ART; PACSI; ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE; MIDTOWN GREENWAY COALITION; HEMOPHILIA FEDERATION OF AMERICA; ST JO CHURCH; SUE ROCK ORIGINALS EVERYONE, INC.; SHALOM 2 YOU, INC; BROOKLYN MUSIC SCHOOL; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA; ALAMEDA EDUCA ARBOR DEVELOPMENT; WECOUNT!; ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN STUDIO; ALTERNATIVES IN ACTION; NATIONAL FRAGILE X FOUNDATION; BROOKLYN COMMUNITY HOUS INC.; YOUTH VENTURE; ST. JOHN’S PLACE FAMILY CENTER, HDFC; HOMEAID, HOME BUILDERS CARE, INC.; HAGAR’S HOUSE; ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHILDREN’S LAW CE CULTURAL CENTER OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; FRACTURED ATLAS; E & A FREEDOM CENTER; CHILDREN’S MUSEUM IN EASTON; BUSINESS LEADERS OF TOMORROW ERMENT CTR. INC.; THE REDEFINE LIFE FOUNDATION; SAN MATEO CHILD CARE COORDINATING COUNCIL; ST. LOUIS TRANSITIONAL HOPE HOUSE, INC.; NATIONAL EC RIGHTS INITIATIVE (NESRI); CONFLUENCE PROJECT; NEIGHBORS’ CONSEJO; THE DAWN PROJECT; SPARK; SPORTS4KIDS; GOLES; NEW ORLEANS WORKERS’ CENTER F THE IMAGINE BUS PROJECT; ARTSBORETUM; GARRETT’S SPACE; GARDNER PILOT ACADEMY; HARLEM SUCCESS ACADEMY 3; KEEP ON PUSHING FOUNDATION; BIG BR OF PUGET SOUND; CHICAGO WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER; FIVER CHILDREN’S FOUNDATION; LEARNING BY DESIGN IN MASSACHUSETTS; SYMPHONY OF THE SOUTHWE SERVICES, INC.; SARAH’S CIRCLE; RESPOND NOW; I AM YOU NFP; MIRIAM’S KITCHEN; SAN DIEGOANS FOR BETTER HOUSING NOW!; AURORA COUNCIL #736 KNIGHTS DESTINY ACADEMY OF LEARNING; IGLESIA PENTECOSTAL LA VOZ DE JESUCRISTO, INC.; HOMEAID SOUTHERN NEVADA; MERRIMACK VALLEY HABITAT FOR HUMANIT COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (ACCE); JUNIOR LEAGUE OF BOSTON, INC.; A SECOND CHANCE OF HOPE; NEW ORLEANS CITY PARK; GREATER ROCK DEVELOPMENT C DREAM; CRADLES TO CRAYONS; GOING EVERGREEN; FORGOTTEN DREAMS FOUNDATION; ART FOR HEALING; HOMES FOR HOPE, INC.; BAYVIEW MISSIONARY BAPTIST 2 FEMME, NFP; WOODSTOCK CHRISTIAN LIFE SERVICES; BOOK-IT REPERTORY THEATRE; ALBANY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER; A.J. MUSTE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE; SRLP