A recently published interface pulls together data on what architecture firms received approval for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funding from the United States Small Business Administration (SBA). The interface collects publicly available information published by SBA that has been sorted according to the North American Industry Classification System code for the architecture industry, based on filings under NAICS CODE: 541310 for “Architectural Services.”
The interface, powered by Google’s Data Studio, shows 3,504 architecture-related companies that were approved to receive PPP funding from the SBA, resulting in the potential retention of over 100,000 employees.
The PPP program was included in the $2.2 trillion CARES Act economic aid package, passed in late March 2020, which was created to stem economic losses sustained by the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing businesses to keep employees during this time of hardship. According to SBA, over $520 billion in loans has been dispersed overall, while $130 billion remains in the PPP fund.
SBA’s raw data set published by the federal government lists the companies that were approved to receive more than $150,000 in forgivable loans from individual lending institutions and includes hundreds of well-known firms as well as national architectural organizations, including the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Association for Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), and the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). Businesses and organizations that received less than $150k appear to have not been disclosed.
Documentation accompanying the data explains that the published list highlights “a small business or non-profit organization that [...] has been approved for a PPP loan by a delegated lender. However, the lender’s approval does not reflect a determination by SBA that the borrower is eligible for a PPP loan or entitled to loan forgiveness.” The document continues, “All PPP loans are subject to SBA review and all loans over $2 million will automatically be reviewed. Because a borrower is listed in the data as having a PPP loan does not mean that SBA has determined that the borrower complied with program rules or is eligible to receive loan forgiveness.”
If fully funded as requested, the 3,504 architecture firms would be able to “retain” over 103,682 employees through the program, according to the data. Of the firms listed, RD Engineering & Construction, Inc. and Nelson Worldwide, LLC boast the greatest number of potentially retained jobs, 500 workers each. Rounding out the top five are Ware Malcomb Architects, H2M Architects, and Ewing Cole, which sought to retain 479, 467, and 462 employees respectively. Of the 3,504 firms, 183 aimed to retain 100 or more employees while the remainder sought to keep 99 or fewer employees on payroll. Those largest 183 firms represent 33,723 jobs that could be retained through the program, pointing to the fact that the vast majority of the firms that were approved for PPP funding are relatively small in size.
Voluntarily submitted demographic information included with SBA’s data and is somewhat incomplete, as the majority of firms did not disclose those details. Of those that did provide demographic data, 773 identified as being male-owned while 97 reported being female-owned; 2,634 firms did not provide gendered ownership information. Of the 431 firms that provided demographic information pertaining to race, one reported American Indian or Alaska Native ownership, 10 reported Black or African American ownership, 24 reported Asian ownership, 25 reported Hispanic ownership, and 371 reported white ownership; 3,073 firms did not report racial ownership data. Meanwhile, 17 firms reported veteran ownership, while 665 reported “non-veteran” ownership; 2,822 firms did not provide veteran status.
The funding approvals are only broken down by order of magnitude, so determining an overall amount of funding earmarked for architecture groups is difficult. However, 32 were deemed eligible for $5-10 million in PPP funding, 127 for $2-5 million, 272 for $1-2 million, 1,100 for $350,000-1 million, and 2,000 for $150,000- 350,000. It is assumed that a large number of smaller firms received PPP funding under $150k.
Speaking geographically, New York City had the most firms approved for PPP loans, with 240 practices there receiving approval above $150k. This was followed by San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle, which reported 92, 87, 64 practices respectively. Following these cities are Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Boston, with 62 firms each, and Dallas and Portland, with 53 and 48 firms, respectively.
This data set provides an initial glimpse into the degree to which the architecture and design industry has been supported through the historic economic crisis unleashed by the COVID-19 pandemic and points toward the widespread necessity and efficacy of this program, at least within the short term. It remains unclear how much economic aid architecture firms received overall, however, and how this amount compares to other industries, some of which, like restaurants and hospitality, were heavily supported by PPP.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
23 Comments
As a tool to prevent business failures and unemployment during a period of mandatory stay at home orders, PPP was a bizarre and unwieldy solution. All that was really needed was a way to insure food and shelter for all while we were on lockdown. The goal would have been better achieved by an all-encompassing pause on payments of overhead expenses (rent, mortgages, utilities, etc.) for all individuals and businesses, and direct aid to individuals to buy food and pay medical expenses. than by how easy it was to get the money and still be within the rules. A lot of PPP has gone to firms that were probably never in danger of failing. Here in the south where architecture and construction never really closed, PPP has so far just been a kind of bonus for most businesses in architecture and construction.
A cool thing about PPP is that it penalized firms where big portions of the staff was working in the office improperly as 1099 contractors. The firm owners couldn't get PPP for those wages. It looks like several of the larger, hip & artsy firms in my area are missing from the PPP list for that reason.
I hadn't considered that. I was a little surprised to see that one of my former firms is not in the list. They don't do the 1099 thing though. Then I realized it was simply that they are probably too big to qualify as a small business per SBA's standards.
The SBA has only disclosed the businesses that received PPP loans greater than $150k. If eight weeks of a business’s payroll is less than $150,000 then they would not be included in this published list. That accounts for a huge number of companies in the architectural services category.
The top and the bottom tiers of the business will not show up on the list: At the top, IIRC, places with 500+ employees were deemed too big for PPP, and the bottom where places whose PPP calculation put their loan under $150k.
It's interesting to see that some firms have indicated that the loan money helped them retain zero jobs. Does that mean those firms would have simply reduced salaries or hours but kept the staff employed without the loan?
This was informative for my question ... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/over-500000-businesses-got-ppp-loans-but-are-listed-as-retaining-zero-jobs-treasury-department-data-show-2020-07-08
Interesting that Architects Orange has taken the most of any firm in the US...
How are you making that determination?
Just to be clear, the SBA has not disclosed specific loan amounts that any businesses received. They've only indicated ranges of loan amounts. Architects Orange is in a category of 32 firms that received anywhere between $5-10M, but they are not among 5 firms in that category that retained the most employees, as we included in the article. Unless you have access to data that has not be disclosed, there is no way of knowing the exact amount issued by the SBA.
This is true..
There are some firms on here who, if I have any sort of correct understanding of their size, took out way more money than they should have been eligible for, and are listing way more employees than I would ever have guessed they had (sometimes by a factor of 5 or 10).
I'm not going to name names, as it may be that I'm just out of touch, but I don't think I am.
When applying for PPP businesses had to provide proof of payroll and employees, so if they had requested loan amounts exceeding what they are eligible for they would have had to submit forged records. If a company cannot justify the use of the funds going toward payroll and a few operating expenses, they won't be forgiven for that funding, so they will be required to pay that money back.
That's not quite correct. I know because our office got a (small) PPP loan. Our bank asked for minimal records, but we could easily have exaggerated expenses w/out them knowing. Maybe on the back end they'll want more thorough documentation and will weed out any problem loans then.
In Archinect's experience getting PPP, we had to provide extremely detailed documentation of payroll. Some banks may have had less strict requirements, but if you aren't able to provide proof that the received PPP was used to cover payroll and a few expenses like rent and benefits, then the business will be required to pay back the PPP money, just like a regular loan.
technically these are all loans, and are only forgiven if 60% goes to payroll. Still, that’s a very generous offer for larger firms, and not great for those small enough or too new to affording hiring in the first place. So, the rich get richer and the poor fall off the map
The smaller firms had/have EIDL loans available, which though not forgivable are at a super low interest rate for 30 years. So there's that...
How can the AIA and its members run for taxpayer funding when they have refused to diversify the profession.Taxes are collected from a diverse demographic.
Part of PPP should have required that firms that have not contributed to expanding the profession should be placed at the bottom of the file.This has happened with the medical field and its working.Architects can no longer be the ones to determine who gets licenses through internship hiring.The process is flawed.The schools have also failed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/04/673318859/the-push-for-diversity-in-medical-school-is-slowly-paying-off
...becoming spam you are.
"becoming" indicates a process toward a goal they've already achieved.
We get it, you've got an axe to grind with the AIA. A lot of us do too. Maybe try keeping it to threads that actually have to do with the AIA.
Did Archinect receive a PPP loan?
Where's Admiral Ackbar?
P.s. read the comments.
Oopsy daisy, missed that little nugget buried in the comments, good catch!
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.