By Erika Sanchez Saez
We will spend years, perhaps centuries, studying and analyzing what we, as humanity, have been experiencing since the beginning of 2020.
There are those who say that the pandemic marks the transition and the true beginning of the 21st century, just as the First World War established and materialized what it meant to be in the 20th century. There are optimistic analyzes that see this period as a possibility for transition to make the changes we so desperately need. There are also pessimists, who point to this as the first of many pandemics to come and the worsening of all our common challenges from it, starting with the deepening of inequalities on a global scale and in a frightening way in the Brazilian context.
Preferences aside, anything is possible. What will happen to the world and in Brazil after the Covid-19 pandemic is our collective responsibility and can go in many directions. This perspective gives us power and at the same time a lot of responsibility. Especially at a historical moment when the health crisis exacerbates so many other crises and threats.
To use this power with the greatest possible awareness, we need to produce and systematize knowledge that feeds, guides and inspires us. Even though it is easier to analyze the past, the pandemic has made us more aware than ever that our power is in the now and that, therefore, it is essential that we are able to produce data and knowledge in an agile, articulated, complementary way. and collaborative, which guides us and contributes to decision-making.
And when we look at a specific topic, such as the action of philanthropy and private social investment (ISP), the dynamics apply in a similar way based on their nuances and specificities.
In March 2020, when we understood that the pandemic had arrived in Brazil, I received the invitation to coordinate GIFE's emergency actions front and, thus, for a year I closely followed the actions of Brazilian philanthropy and civil society organized in a broad, throughout the first year of the pandemic. O gif – Group of Institutes Foundations and Companies, brings together philanthropic organizations – or private social investment (ISP) – whether they are institutes or foundations of family, business or independent origin or companies that work by contributing voluntarily to solve collective problems. The organization, which works to promote the strengthening and qualification of philanthropy and ISP in Brazil through strategies that range from the production of knowledge to the promotion of coordination, understood that it had a fundamental role to play, given that the context of humanitarian catastrophe that beginning to take shape was in itself a call to action in the sector.
Although part of organized civil society, philanthropic actors occupy a very special place within the group. Unlike the vast majority of organizations, philanthropy has its own financial resources, with broad – albeit varied – freedom to use them, in addition to a high degree of power and influence. This characteristic is crucial for understanding the sector and its relationship with other agents that work in the public sphere with the aim of addressing common challenges. And the pandemic was no different. However, the pandemic and emergency context, as well as in all dimensions of existence, changed the dynamics of philanthropy and ISP operations in Brazil.
As part of the initiatives of GIFE Covid Emergency Project, organized into 5 axes of action, we designed a front dedicated to producing knowledge and analyzes about the performance of philanthropy and ISP in the pandemic.
For this front, we built five main actions: (1) mapping and access to a curation of publications on the emergency action of philanthropy and ISP in the pandemic available on Synapse, (2) a assessment rubric platform to support organizations in evaluating their emergency actions, (3) a search with general data on the performance of philanthropic organizations, (4) the production of a book with an analysis of GIFE on the sector's response and the impact of the pandemic on its ways of doing things and (5) the promotion of 5 studies carried out by actors in the sector who analyzed specific themes and complementary to the publication that GIFE subscribes to. All of them can be accessed at Sinapse, the GIFE virtual library:
Use of data in the social sector: learning from the pandemic and paths to interoperability
The role and protagonism of civil society in confronting the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil (in partnership with the Social Justice Philanthropy Network)
What the pandemic told us about giving (in partnership with the Movement for a Culture of Giving)
Corporate philanthropy in Brazil: an analysis of corporate donations amid the Covid-19 pandemic (in partnership with Fundação José Luiz Egydio Setúbal and ABCR)
The set of analyses, although unable to predict the future, gives us clues and points out priority paths for the sector. Unanimous and other complementary findings reflect the main questions and possible answers for more strategic, meaningful and transformative action. Below, I highlight ten points from this body of knowledge produced in just over six months.
10 years in 1: The breadth and urgency of the pandemic changed the way of doing philanthropy in Brazil (and around the world), but the changes observed were not invented during the emergency. What we observed was an acceleration of processes that were already underway. The urgency of the moment meant that the sector dared to put into practice, in record time, many reflections that were already well consolidated, but which still encountered resistance to transform into action. We went from the inertia of thinking to doing it, which opened up an opportunity to change practices in a more permanent way.
Power and limits: the recognition of the fundamental and agile response of philanthropy is unanimous in all analyzes carried out. By countering the absence and omission of a response at the governmental level, especially at the federal level, its actions gained more prominence, visibility and relevance. The action of philanthropy and civil society in a broad way, especially grassroots organizations with all their capacity and resilience, stopped a collapse that, despite the critical situation, could have been even greater. At the same time, the experience throughout the year also highlighted the limits of the sector and the construction of public policies – in collaboration with all actors in the public sphere – as being the only possible way to actually build structuring responses to the deepest causes of problems.
To reach the top, you need to be and be a top: the base – the groups, collectives, leaders, organizations in the territories – was, as perhaps never before, recognized as a fundamental structure for getting help to where it needs to go. There was a greater flow of resources to grassroots organizations, however, there was a concentration of donations to a small group of more structured organizations, previously known by social investors and located in the Southeast.
The reinvention of knowledge production: Knowledge production often requires long and complex processes that make it difficult to quickly produce quality information. However, once again, the urgency of the pandemic made it possible for us to experiment with other ways of producing knowledge, with emphasis on: real-time mapping, collaborative systematization, shared data, transparency and access to information. At the same time, the intense production of data throughout the year highlighted opportunities to make better use of existing information, for example, standardizing data collection and making better use of technological resources.
Collaboration as a method: There has long been talk about the importance and advantages of collaboration in philanthropic work, that is, about the collaborative processes that involve the act of donating. However, acting alone is historically the standard way of doing philanthropy. It is no coincidence that collaboration has been cited as one of the main legacies of the pandemic for philanthropy. In fact, to achieve its objectives, especially scale, but in many cases also agility (although time was often cited as an obstacle to more collaborative action), collaboration was a fundamental ingredient for the greatest success stories. of responses produced by philanthropy throughout the pandemic and we hope that this is a path of no return.
From emergency donation to donation as part of culture: “have we become more donors? ”. That question resonated repeatedly throughout the last one. It is a fact that the mobilization of donations in Brazil was unprecedented, but the extent to which this involvement will translate into a behavioral change on the part of Brazilians beyond the emergency is still an unanswered question. What can be said is that the donation experience during the pandemic opens windows for the topic to gain new spaces in everyday life.
Companies and society: companies were responsible for approximately 85% of the donations made, systematized by the ABCR Donation Monitor. The private sector experienced – perhaps for the first time – another type of “competition”: that of who donates the most. This movement coincided and, at the same time, gave traction for the conversation about ESG* [ESS1] as an important component of what will guarantee the sustainability of a company in the medium and long term.
Trust, innovate and take risks: The need to respond quickly and work more cooperatively and collaboratively – whether with other investors, implementing partners or supported organizations – has imposed a need for greater trust, innovation and risk. Over the last year it was common to hear from social investors who had done things they had never done before. Approval processes gained agility and the willingness to take risks was clearly greater, as it was often this or nothing. And the result was positive. The joint movement in this direction contributed to increasing the collective boldness of the sector and the role of leaders was fundamental in ensuring that decisions were taken quickly.
Civil society as a fundamental pillar of democracy: In addition to the pandemic, we have experienced countless other challenges in recent years in Brazil. All of this together once again illuminated the importance of an active organized civil society and this gained expanded public recognition, including in the narratives produced by the media.
Honor the primal act of philanthropy: the donation and importance of expanding the grantmaking in Brazil. For the first time, GIFE registered the grantmaking as the most cited action strategy, surpassing the execution of own projects, which according to the GIFE Census historical series, has always been the main form of action. This data is quite symbolic for the development of the Brazilian philanthropist and ISP. Due to the sum of many factors already mentioned in the previous points, the role of philanthropy as a source of resources to sustain a strong, plural and diverse civil society is increasingly fundamental and has enormous potential to increase the strength and power of citizen action . This awareness was expanded and gained strength during the pandemic. However, we have a long way to go, as in addition to having a lot of room to grow in volume, it will be necessary to improve the ways of doing grantmaking so that they are actually at the service of strengthening civil society - and not the needs of the donor. During the pandemic, in many cases, resources only passed through organizations, contributing very little to their own operation, sustainability and strengthening.
To delve deeper into the conclusions that the set of studies reveals, you are invited to access each of the publications and browse the mapped studies and the evaluation rubric platform.
Appropriating and expanding this reflection is a collective task – as urgent and necessary as the actions of Brazilian civil society have been since the beginning of the pandemic.
