Public Architecture just released the results of their survey of architecture firms to determine the level of pro bono work being done and the barriers to increasing the donation of pro bono services.  It is the first study of pro bono work outside the legal profession that I have found.  It is a must read for any pro bono junkie:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/08/prweb546666.htm

The survey reports that the majority of the firms are spending over 2% of their time on pro bono efforts.  This has significant implications for the overall pro bono movement.  The common objection from consulting, HR, tech, marketing and accounting firms, when asked why they can't do pro bono at the levels seen at law firms, is that they don't have the margins of law firms.  The 2% reported by architecture firms, while roughly half the 50 hours per year required by of the American Bar Association, is much higher than the pro bono investment reported by most professional services firms.  The great thing about using architecture firms as a benchmark is that they have some of the thinnest margins in the professional services community.  If they can do 2%, there is no reason all firms can't do at least that much.

Should 2% be the target pro bono number for professional services firms?