## 3 Results  
The raw product of our research are two correlation matrices relating budgetary items (budgetary programs) with SDGs performance, the first one relating 2016 budgets and 2018 SDG indexes, and the other one 2018 budgets and 2020 indexes. The results obtained using the data available for the cities studied were analyzed using a two stages model: a first stage where the results of each calculated matrix are cleaned and analyzed individually, in order to obtain a clear picture of the correlation between budget programs and the SDG situation for each year analyzed by using only the significative results, and a second stage where the results of both matrices, once refined, are aggregated and compared in order to reflect possible coincidences between years. We have filtered the data according to the thresholds described in the methodology, and finally encapsulated the results to fit into Figure 1.  
Figure 1: _Cont_. Figure 1: Summary of linkages found between budget items and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) performance indexes. Red cells mean negative impact (trade-offs); blue cells positive impact (synergies); purple cells point out mixed impact (opposite impact direction between analysis). Darker colors render a consistent relation (present in both 2018 and 2020 analysis). Cells marked with x label direct impacts (there is a significant correlation present, and it matches the budget item SDG alignment). The results indicate that almost 25% of all budgetary programs have an impact on the Sustainable Development Goals, with a level of significance of 0.05. Particularly, SDGs 1 (No poverty), SDGs 4 (Quality education), SDGs 7 (Affordable and clean energy), SDGs 8 (Decent work and economic growth), and SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions) show impact relations over 30% of the global budget, exhibiting a more robust relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals scores. Thus, SDG 1 (No poverty) is impacted by 34.1% of the budget programs, reflecting 18 positive impacts in at least one of the years considered, 9 negative impacts of the same temporary nature and 3 prolonged negative impacts in both periods. To emphasize, there are some impacts calculated for this goal that are consistent with previously linkages mentioned, such as programs 231 (Primary social care) and 925 (Attention to citizens) which have a positive correlation in the model calculated and an evident relationship with the SDG 1. In the same way, SDG 2 (Zero hunger) is impacted by 25% of the budget programs, reflecting 12 negative impacts in at least one of the years considered, nine positive impacts of the same temporary nature and three prolonged positive impacts in both periods. Following the same analysis, we can observe the program 412 (Improvement of agricultural structures and production systems) is positively linked in the correlation, in exactly the same way as they influence the SDG under discussion. The SDG 3 (Good health and wellbeing for people) is impacted by 18.2% of the budget programs, reflecting eight negative impacts in at least one of the years considered, one positive impact of the same temporary nature, four prolonged negative impacts in both periods and three positive impacts reiterated in the 2-year periods. The program 311 (Public health protection) impacts directly. The SDG 4 (Quality education) is impacted by 30.7% of the budget programs, reflecting 11 positive impacts in at least one of the years considered, five negative impacts of the same temporary nature, nine prolonged positive impacts in both periods and three negative impacts reiterated in the two-year periods.