Steele Foundation For Hope

The Steele Foundation for Hope operates with a distinctive dual mandate that sets it apart from conventional philanthropies: it functions simultaneously as a patient capital investor in for-profit social enterprises and as a traditional grantmaker to nonprofits delivering transformational services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Founded in January 2022 by Stuart and Suzanne Steele, with CEO Joe Exner leading operations (compensated $1.04M in FY2023), the foundation has committed over $350 million since inception, deploying capital across 26 social enterprises in 107 countries.

The foundation's investment philosophy centers on three non-negotiable criteria: the character and competence of the individual leader, the ingenuity and scalability of the solution, and the economic viability of the business model. They explicitly prefer 'individual leaders over institutions, creators over consultants, and entrepreneurs over executives.' This is not a committee-grant funder — it is a conviction-driven foundation that bets on people.

For nonprofits seeking traditional grants, the foundation funds organizations providing transformational services in healthcare, water, food security, and education for Global South populations. The grantee list confirms this: Alight ($2M for refugee services), Gardens for Health International ($1.52M in Rwanda), Building Tomorrow ($1.15M for education in Uganda), Water Access Rwanda ($977K), and World Central Kitchen ($1M for food relief) are all core examples. Multi-year relationships are common — many top grantees received 2-3 grants, suggesting the foundation deepens commitments with performers.

First-time applicants should understand this is a preselected-only funder by disposition. There is no open RFP cycle or public grant competition. The foundation does review unsolicited proposals submitted through its online portal, but the vast majority of funded organizations appear to be identified through the Steele and Exner networks. Warm introductions from existing grantees, board members (Howard Brodsky, Chad Gifford, Kevin Curran, Joe Simone, Tom Warren), or the Steele family (Jamie, Erinn, Stuart, Suzanne) are the most reliable pathway into serious consideration.

Based on 33 documented grants totaling $23.9 million across the foundation's IRS filings, the average grant size is $725,060 — but this figure masks a wide and skewed distribution. The range runs from a low of approximately $100,000 per transaction (Families in Transition received $200K across 2 grants) to a high of $8.33 million total to Simprints Technology Limited across 3 grants.

The foundation's most significant single-category commitment is biometric/health technology: Simprints alone received $8.33M (35% of all documented giving). Removing this outlier, the median grant cluster sits in the $500K–$1.5M range for substantive partners. One-time exploratory grants appear in the $200K–$350K range (Akirachix at $250K, Families in Transition at $200K total). Multi-year partners average $490K–$760K per annual grant.

Giving trajectory: FY2021 ($84K — startup year, nominal giving), FY2022 ($16.95M — initial capital deployment phase), FY2023 ($10.06M — measured continuation, $5.9M in grants paid). The FY2022-to-FY2023 decline of 41% reflects a deliberate deceleration as the foundation completed its initial portfolio buildout and shifted toward deepening existing relationships.

Sector breakdown (estimated from grantee activity): International health/biometric technology accounts for the largest single share (~35%), followed by international food/agriculture (~21%), local hospice/palliative care (~13%), international education (~12%), water access (~8%), disaster relief/humanitarian aid (~8%), and women's tech training (~1%). Geographically, Sub-Saharan Africa (Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya) represents the primary beneficiary region, with secondary focus on South and Southeast Asia via tech portfolio companies.

Organizations based in the northeastern U.S. — particularly Massachusetts (6 grantees) and New Hampshire (5 grantees) — are overrepresented in the portfolio relative to sector norms, likely reflecting the founder network's geographic roots in New England.

The five peer foundations identified in this analysis all hold assets in the $360–$367 million range and share the Philanthropy & Grantmaking NTEE classification, but differ substantially in geographic focus, grantmaking style, and application openness.

Of these peers, the Steele Foundation is the most globally oriented and the most explicitly focused on early-stage social enterprises. The Erb Family Foundation and Neubauer Family Foundation operate with comparable assets and larger disclosed giving volumes, but both are regionally anchored (Great Lakes and Philadelphia, respectively) and favor established nonprofit institutions over entrepreneurial ventures. Steele's willingness to provide $1M+ grants to organizations with fewer than 10 years of operation is distinctive among this peer cohort. Applicants who have been rejected or overlooked by regionally constrained peers with similar assets should prioritize the Steele Foundation if their work serves Global South populations through scalable technology-enabled solutions.

The most significant recent development is the foundation's announcement of a strategic partnership between a portfolio company and Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), Arm (the semiconductor company), and Ghana Health Service. This collaboration targets real-time monitoring of malaria vaccine delivery, aiming to reduce dropout rates and verify immunization coverage using biometric identification — technology that Simprints (the foundation's largest grantee at $8.33M) specializes in. This announcement signals the foundation is actively brokering ecosystem partnerships for its portfolio companies, adding non-capital value beyond grants alone.

The foundation also recently made a core technology open-source, reflecting a philosophy of systemic impact over proprietary advantage. Stuart and Suzanne Steele remain founding directors alongside CEO Joe Exner, whose total compensation rose from $50K in FY2021 to $255K in FY2022 to $1.04M in FY2023 — indicating a rapid professionalization of foundation operations as assets and complexity grew. Tony Schiefert (Foundation Analyst) and Jennifer Newell (Foundation Coordinator) represent the core professional staff visible in FY2024 filings.

Financially, total assets surpassed $363 million by FY2024 (up from $243M in FY2023 and $146M in FY2022), driven by continued family contributions. The foundation filed its most recent Form 990 with ProPublica in 2024, covering the FY2023 fiscal year. No specific new grant announcements for calendar years 2025–2026 are publicly available, as IRS data typically lags by 12–18 months. The foundation's continued presence on the Charity Navigator and Instrumentl platforms suggests active engagement with the broader philanthropic community.

Know the dual-track structure before approaching. The Steele Foundation funds two distinct types of organizations: (1) for-profit social enterprises with scalable technology-enabled business models, and (2) nonprofits delivering on-the-ground transformational services in healthcare, water, food, or education in low- and middle-income countries. Identify which track your organization fits and tailor your entire narrative accordingly.

Lead with the founder, not the organization. This funder explicitly chooses 'individual leaders over institutions.' Your executive director or founder's biography, their personal commitment to the mission, their relevant expertise, and their track record should appear prominently in the first two pages of any proposal. A proposal that reads as institutional rather than entrepreneurial will not resonate.

Demonstrate a path to revenue self-sufficiency. The foundation's stated goal is to help grantees become 'independent of ongoing philanthropic support.' If your organization cannot articulate a five-year scenario in which earned revenue, government contracts, or social enterprise income significantly replaces grant dependency, strengthen this narrative before applying. This distinguishes your proposal from typical nonprofit grant requests.

Prepare a professional data room before submitting. The foundation's portal requires accompanying documentation (financials, operational metrics, team bios, market analysis). Submitting a proposal without a complete data room will delay or end your consideration. Treat this like an investor due-diligence package, not a grant application letter.

Use the right alignment language. The foundation responds to language about 'character and competence,' 'economic viability,' 'scalable impact,' 'benefiting the less fortunate through technology and innovation,' and serving populations in 'the Global South.' Avoid sector jargon around 'capacity building,' 'advocacy,' or 'awareness campaigns' — these signal misalignment with the foundation's model.

Pursue a warm introduction. With preselected_only status, cold submissions through the portal face steep odds. Existing grantees — particularly World Central Kitchen, Alight, Building Tomorrow, or Gardens for Health International — represent the most accessible warm-introduction pathway. Board members Howard Brodsky and Chad Gifford are visible business figures worth researching for mutual connections.

Apply on a rolling basis, but time for strong metrics. There are no set deadlines. Submit when you have your most compelling impact data available — ideally after completing a programmatic milestone, publishing an evaluation, or securing a matching commitment from another funder.