STEA funding criteria for 2027 have come under scrutiny after Finland’s Chancellor of Justice Janne Salminen criticised the way Social Affairs and Health Minister Wille Rydman and his ministry presented new rules for state grants to social welfare and health organisations.
Salminen said the wording used when the criteria were announced in June could have given organisations the impression that certain types of applicants had already been excluded from funding before their applications were assessed. He said this risked weakening confidence in the impartiality of the funding process.
The Chancellor issued his decision on 29 September after several complaints were filed over the criteria for 2027 grants distributed through the Funding Centre for Social Welfare and Health Organisations, known as STEA. The complaints questioned both the content of the criteria and the way they had been prepared and announced.
The dispute began in June, when STEA announced that funding priorities would become stricter in 2027. The announcement said continued grants would not be given to organisations whose activities were focused on social advocacy or advisory work. It also said funding would not be granted to organisations whose activities mainly targeted one specific background or identity group without a health-related basis.
The announcement came as the government was preparing substantial reductions in funding for social welfare and health organisations. STEA said grants for 2027 would total about EUR 190 million, roughly one third less than in 2026. The government had agreed on cuts of about EUR 84 million to STEA funding.
Salminen did not conclude that Rydman lacked the authority to set funding priorities. On the contrary, he found that the minister could define more detailed areas of focus for the 2027 funding round and could establish additional criteria within the limits set by legislation.
The problem, according to the Chancellor, was how those criteria were written and communicated. The June announcement used wording that appeared to say certain organisations would not receive funding at all. Salminen said this could create the impression that organisations carrying out particular types of work were being excluded before their individual applications had been considered under the relevant laws and regulations.
He said public funding authorities must not only act without discrimination but must also appear impartial to people outside the administration. In his view, restrictive wording of this kind could undermine confidence in the neutrality of the funding process and create an inaccurate picture of how applications would actually be assessed.
The issue was particularly relevant to the reference to organisations serving a specific non-health-related background or identity group. STEA later changed the wording used in its September application notice, stating that this disputed criterion would not be taken into account in the 2027 application process.
Salminen also pointed to an inconsistency in the information provided about how the criteria would be used. Rydman and the ministry said the criteria were intended to guide officials in preparing funding proposals and were not legally or politically binding on STEA. At the same time, the June announcement had stated that funding proposals would be prepared on the basis of the new criteria.
The Chancellor stressed that applicants must be treated according to the same published criteria. Organisations applying for funding must have the same information about the grounds on which applications will be assessed, and authorities should not rely on additional criteria that were not disclosed in the application notice.
This requirement is linked to the broader principles of equal treatment, transparency and legal certainty in public administration. Salminen said applicants should be able to rely on the information provided by the funding authority and expect applications to be assessed using the criteria that were announced in advance.
The Chancellor also examined whether the criteria should have been adopted through a formal administrative decision. Rydman and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health said no such decision had been made because the criteria were considered part of administrative guidance and political prioritisation rather than a formal funding decision.
Salminen accepted that setting the criteria did not necessarily require a formal administrative decision. However, he said the ministry normally resolves matters through a presentation procedure and that, given the importance of the criteria to organisations seeking funding, it would have been more appropriate to use that procedure when the criteria were prepared and approved.
He also said the reasoning behind the criteria should have been properly documented. Such documentation would make it possible for people outside the administration to examine how the criteria were chosen and why particular priorities were adopted. It would also strengthen transparency and provide better legal protection for both applicants and officials involved in the preparation of the funding decisions.
The Chancellor’s decision comes against the backdrop of a wider dispute within Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s government over the future of STEA funding. The planned reductions have required the government and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to determine where the remaining funding should be concentrated.
The government also amended the decree governing STEA funding during the process. A revised decree that entered into force on 31 August placed greater emphasis on concrete, direct work with clients and added requirements concerning issues such as changes in the operating environment, possible overlap with other organisations, accessibility of activities, reasonable costs and how applicants had responded to earlier feedback. The amended rules state that funding decisions are based on an overall assessment.
Rydman’s June criteria attracted criticism from organisations and others concerned about the possible effects on groups working with particular communities. The Chancellor’s decision does not, however, prevent the government or the ministry from deciding which activities should receive greater emphasis when public funds are limited.
Instead, Salminen made clear that such priorities must remain within the legal framework governing state grants. The criteria must be consistent with legislation, must not create restrictions that have no basis in law or regulation, and must be communicated in a way that gives applicants a clear and accurate understanding of the funding process.
In his final conclusions, Salminen drew the attention of Rydman and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the requirements of the State Grants Act and the principles of good administration. He said future criteria must be non-discriminatory in both their substance and wording, information about funding applications must be consistent, and applications must be assessed according to the criteria published for the funding round.
The decision therefore leaves the government’s ability to set STEA funding priorities intact while placing clearer emphasis on how those priorities are formulated, documented and applied. For organisations seeking funding in 2027, the practical issue is that applications must be assessed under the published legal and administrative criteria rather than being excluded in advance by wording that suggests a broader restriction than the law allows.
