Let's talk about STEA grants.

274 M€

to 686 orgs

~90 M€

savings potential

21.3%

no earmarking

Ministry of Social Affairs grant decision for 2026. Data from avustukset.stea.fi.

AI analysis for discussion. Classifications, interpretations and savings estimates may contain errors.

197 organizations received exactly what they asked for - 77 M€ total. No cuts, no questions.

€58M (21%) paid as general funding with no performance targets. The organization decides where the money goes.

127 organizations funded every year 2000-2026. 686 organizations run 686 boards and audits - same work doable by a hundred.

Only 73% of funding reaches direct client work. 27% goes to admin, general grants, coordination and lobbying.

Background and History

How STEA works, where the money comes from and where it goes

How does STEA funding work?

STEA (under the Ministry of Social Affairs) prepares proposals, the minister decides. Three types: Ay (general grant, no earmarking), Ak (targeted grant for specific purpose), C (project funding, temporary). Ay is essentially a blank check.

STEA: Applying for grants Grant guide (PDF)

Where does the money come from?

STEA grants were previously funded by RAY gambling monopoly profits. After the monopoly reform, funding comes directly from the state budget. Taxpayer money.

Act on funding social and health organizations (1394/2022)Ministry: Organization funding

Who monitors?

STEA monitors grant usage after the fact. Organizations report annually. But general grant (Ay) usage is practically unmonitored - the org decides where the money goes.

STEA: Grant monitoring Grant database

Autopilot

Organizations funded every single year 2000-2026

127 organizations have received STEA funding every year from 2000 to 2026. 25 years of uninterrupted funding.

During the RAY era (2000-2016), 780-1190 orgs were funded annually at 234-315M. In 2026, 686 orgs with 274 M€.

#	Organization	2000	2016	2026 ↓
1.	SUOMEN PUNAINEN RISTI	3 M€	4 M€	4 M€
2.	KEHITYSVAMMALIITTO RY	952k€	3 M€	2 M€
3.	MANNERHEIMIN LASTENSUOJELULIITTO RY	1 M€	3 M€	2 M€
4.	NUORTEN YSTÄVÄT RY	3 M€	1 M€	2 M€
5.	VÄESTÖLIITTO RY	188k€	3 M€	2 M€
6.	SOSIAALIPEDAGOGIIKAN SÄÄTIÖ	2 M€	2 M€	2 M€
7.	INVALIDILIITTO RY	4 M€	3 M€	2 M€
8.	ENSI- JA TURVAKOTIEN LIITTO RY	2 M€	5 M€	2 M€
9.	VANHUSTYÖN KESKUSLIITTO RY	706k€	3 M€	2 M€
10.	SUOMEN MERIPELASTUSSEURA RY	835k€	2 M€	2 M€

Share on X Discuss in ChatGPT Research in Perplexity

Funding by region

Valtakunnallinen

147 M€258

Helsinki

12 M€74

Pirkanmaan hyvinvointialue

7 M€32

Varsinais-Suomen hyvinvointialue

6 M€38

Tampere

4 M€40

Espoo

4 M€51

Vantaa

4 M€51

Pohjois-Savon hyvinvointialue

4 M€24

Vantaan ja Keravan hyvinvointialue

3 M€34

Helsingin kaupunki

3 M€39

Länsi-Uudenmaan hyvinvointialue

3 M€34

Pohjois-Pohjanmaan hyvinvointialue

3 M€23

Savings Potential

What could be saved by streamlining the organization landscape?

~90 M€

33% of total funding (274 M€)

67% efficient33% can be streamlined

Admin duplication

686 separate orgs need 686 boards, audits and reports. Same work could be done by ~100 orgs.

29 M€

10.7%

General funding to project-based

21.3% (58 M€) goes without project tracking. Converting to project-based frees 30%.

17 M€

6.4%

Duplicate programs

26 groups run the same programs. Merging eliminates duplication.

7 M€

2.5%

Public sector tasks

Employment is TE services' job. Integration is municipalities' job. Yet orgs get millions for these.

7 M€

2.5%

Shared back-office

16 groups (60M) where shared accounting, HR, IT cuts admin 10%.

6 M€

2.2%

Coordination overhead

9.2M goes to coordination, development, networking. Half could be cut by merging.

5 M€

1.7%

Lobbying

Orgs lobby the ministry that funds them. Advocacy with public money is a structural conflict.

3 M€

1.0%

Zero scrutiny

33 orgs get every grant applied for, totaling 35M. Not a single denial.

2 M€

0.7%

686 organizations run 686 boards, audits and reports. Same work could be done by ~100 orgs.

RUBBER STAMP (197)

Got exactly what was requested. No cuts.

REVIEW (27)

Over 60% of funding is general grants. Purpose unclear.

LARGE (14)

Over €2M to a single organization. Efficiency questionable.

MULTI-PURPOSE (13)

Over 5 grant targets. Focus fragmented.

OK (435)

Normal grant recipient. No significant concerns.

DENIED (80)

All applications denied. €0 granted.

Method

STEA Grant Analysis

DATA
Ministry of Social Affairs grant decision for 2026
Downloaded from avustukset.stea.fi
766 organizations, 1527 grant lines

CLASSIFICATION
- RUBBER STAMP: 100% approval rate and granted > 100k
- REVIEW: General funding > 60% and granted > 500k,
  or umbrella org coordinating its members
- LARGE: Granted > 2M
- MULTI-PURPOSE: Over 5 funded grant targets
- DENIED: All applications denied
- OK: Normal grant recipient

ANALYSIS
- Top 140 organizations analyzed by Claude Opus, reading
  every grant purpose
- Remaining 546 analyzed automatically with same logic
- Overlap identified by Opus by reviewing all 686
  funded organizations by sector
- 51 overlap groups documented with reasoning

SAVINGS CALCULATION
- Admin cost: 32-92k per org (board, audit, office,
  reporting to STEA)
- 686 orgs -> ~100 would suffice = 586 x 50k savings
- General funding above 30%: excess to be earmarked
- Public sector tasks: TE services, municipalities,
  wellbeing regions

Model: Claude Opus 4.6
Processing: Local analysis, no API calls

What's real, what's estimated?

✓ Grant amounts are real from the Ministry decision

✓ Organization data, business IDs and classes are from STEA

✓ Top 140 organizations analyzed by Claude Opus

~ Classifications (rubber stamp/review/large) are calculated

~ Overlaps identified by Opus by reviewing all orgs by sector

~ Savings estimates based on admin cost of 32-92k per org

avustukset.stea.fi · stea.fi · Finlex API · @mariluukkainen

Updated March 29, 2026