The SDGs are big. Rockefeller Philanthropy VP offers a primer on where to begin

NEW YORK — Foundations often have a basic question when it comes to funding work in line with the Sustainable Development Goals: Where do they start? While many philanthropic funders remain unaware of the SDGs, others are increasingly thinking about how their work can intersect with the 17 ambitious development goals, according to Heather Grady, a vice president of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, a nonprofit organization that advises on more than $200 million of annual charitable giving. She often advises that an initial step forward involves reflecting on their existing portfolios of work. “There was a misunderstanding that these are the U.N. goals, and only if you work globally are they relevant. Or, only if you love the U.N. do you need them.” --— Heather Grady, vice president, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors “If you are working on early childhood education, the starting place is to figure out what SDG goal and target you are contributing to. The first step is alignment in terms of categorization,” Grady said in an interview. “The second might be communicating your portfolio according to what SDGs they contribute to.” Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors published a two-volume guide in April for philanthropic funders to help align themselves with the SDGs, adding on to a list of guides that are intended to guide businesses and foundations on the subject. Since then, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors have been conducting workshops on how to utilize the guide during the U.N. high-level political forum in July, and most recently in Brazil. “We saw from the beginning that funders and philanthropists in emerging markets were way ahead of foundations in the U.S. and Europe on embracing the SDGs. They are closer to the problem. They see the advantage of the SDGs as a shared framework,” Grady said. “Now, you are seeing more funders in the U.S., Europe, and other richer countries understanding that the SDGs are an important, shared framework. It is still too little, too late — but the ball is rolling.” The SDGs do not necessarily change what foundations support, but can help them improve their work through stronger measurement of results. In the interview, Grady explained how philanthropic work could better integrate the SDGs and promote more realistic and efficient strategies. Out with the old The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation were all early adopters of the SDGs, and corporate foundations from Coca-Cola to General Electric have also since signed on with their own plans. Other foundations have adopted more of a “wait-and-see attitude,” because they want to first consider their own objectives, according to Grady. Misunderstandings about the SDGs has also made some foundations pause. “There was a misunderstanding that these are the U.N. goals, and only if you work globally are they relevant. Or, only if you love the U.N. do you need them,” she said. “What has shifted is the understanding … that the consultations involved millions of people. And now tens of thousands of civil society organizations and businesses are using the SDGs,” Grady continued. “They think it makes sense because it is a shared framework. It makes work go more effectively and efficiently.” Developing methods of measuring progress and tracking results could also help make philanthropic work more efficient, according to Grady. Some foundations such as the Ford Foundation, the Skoll Foundation, and the McConnell Foundation in Canada offer longer term, unrestricted grants. But short-term funding contracts of one or two years remain the norm and need to be extended to at least three, she recommends. “There is an inclination amongst funders to want to see fast results and to want to keep as much flexibility on their side as possible in case they change their minds or strategy. Ultimately what that does is decrease their impact.” --— “If you look at the last 20 or 30 years in philanthropy, the sector could have done much more around the world if donors had had more patience,” Grady said. “Not saying, ‘You have to prove what you are doing through outputs and outcomes every year,’ but rather, ‘Let’s have thoughtful measures and learn together over time.’” In with new approaches to tracking results Many foundations still do not measure their impact. In most cases, tracking philanthropic results comes down to how grant money was spent. “That does not say anything about impact,” Grady said. “Then we have funders who insist on attribution instead of contribution — what exactly did you achieve with my money?” If a funder gives an organization a grant for five to 10 years, questioning how the money was spent could make sense. But if the grant — regardless of its size — only lasts for a year or two, it can be very challenging to show how it has impacted lives, according to Grady. Doubling typical grant terms could offer a solution to this challenge. “There is an inclination amongst funders to want to see fast results and to want to keep as much flexibility on their side as possible in case they change their minds or strategy. Ultimately what that does is decrease their impact,” Grady said. The first steps to creating a monitoring system that actually tracks results are easy, Grady said. Foundations that already have sophisticated monitoring and evaluation systems can also still look to the SDGs to find any cases of overlap. “Look at the targets in the SDGs and use those. Then find out in the country where you are operating: who has data? So you are starting with some baseline to work with,” Grady explained. Collaborating with other partners, including outside foundations and donors, can also help support monitoring work and create more efficient processes. Grady says it is about the “wisdom of crowds.” “You crowd in expertise, you crowd in contacts, you crowd in ideas, and you crowd in resources,” she said. “Collaboration can create more resources, but more efficiency as well.”