The PPP Loan Program was created by the CARES Act and carried out by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide support to small businesses in maintaining their payroll during the Coronavirus pandemic. This program was approved for $350 billion, but this amount was expanded by an additional $320 billion to meet the demand by struggling businesses, since initial funding was exhausted under two weeks.<br/><br/>Significant controversy surrounds the program. In December 2020, the Department of Justice reported 90 individuals were charged for fraudulent use of funds, totaling $250 million. The loans, which were intended for small business, were actually approved for 450 public companies. Furthermore, the methods of approval are<br/>shrouded in mystery. In an effort to be transparent, the SBA has released information about loan recipients. Conveniently, the SBA has released information of all recipients. Detailed information was released for 661,218 recipients who have received a PPP loan in excess of $150,000. These recipients are the central point of this research.<br/><br/>This research sought to answer two primary questions: how did the SBA determine which loans, and therefore which industries are approved, and did the industries most affected by the pandemic receive the most in PPP loans, as intended by Congress? It was determined that, generally, PPP Loans were approved on the basis of employment percentages relative to the individual state. Furthermore, in general, the loans approved were approved fairly, with respect to the size of the industry. The loans, when adjusted for GDP and Employment factors, yielded a clear ranking that prioritized vulnerable industries first.<br/><br/>However, significant questions remain. The effectiveness of the PPP has been hindered by unclear incentives and negative outcomes, characterized by a government program that has essentially been rushed into service. Furthermore, limitations of available data to regress and compare the SBA's approved loans are not representative of small business.

In the early years of the National Football League, scouting and roster development resembled the wild west. Drafts were held in hotel ballrooms the day after the last game of regular season college football was played. There was no combine, limited scouting, and no salary cap. Over time, these aspects have changed dramatically, in part due to key figures from Pete Rozelle to Gil Brandt to Bill Belichick. The development and learning from this time period have laid the foundational infrastructure that modern roster construction is based upon. In this modern day, managing a team and putting together a roster involves numerous people, intense scouting, layers of technology, and, critically, the management of the salary cap. Since it was first put into place in 1994, managing the cap has become an essential element of building and sustaining a successful team. The New England Patriots’ mastery of the cap is a large part of what enabled their dynastic run over the past twenty years. While their model has undoubtedly proven to be successful, an opposing model has become increasingly popular and yielded results of its own. Both models center around different distributions of the salary cap, starting with the portion paid to the starting quarterback. The Patriots dynasty was, in part, made possible due to their use of both models over the course of their dominance. Drafting, organizational culture, and coaching are all among the numerous critical factors in determining a team’s success and it becomes difficult to pinpoint the true source of success for any given team. Ultimately, however, effective management of the cap proves to be a force multiplier; it does not guarantee that a team will be successful, but it helps teams that handle the other variables well sustain their success.

As temperatures increase across the United States, some populations are more at risk for heat-related death and illness than others. One of these at-risk demographics is mobile home and trailer park inhabitants, who are disproportionately represented among indoor heat-related deaths (Solís, “Heat, Health”). In this paper, we outline a cost-benefit analysis that was used to calculate the net present economic value of projects related to reducing heat burden on mobile home owners and parks in Maricopa County. We use this model to assess solutions developed by student teams under the Knowledge Exchange for Resilience’s Summer Heat Resilience Challenge. We find that one of the seven solutions has a positive net present value (NPV) even in the lowest effectiveness (10%), while three more solutions have a positive NPV in the mid-level (50%) effectiveness scenario, showcasing their economic viability.