Each year, 13 student organizations and advisory boards spend hours crafting a presentation for GUSA’s Finance and Appropriations (FinApp) Committee to secure their funding for the following year.
Many organizations rely solely on FinApp’s allocation of resources to fund their events.
FinApp finalized club budgets for Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27)—the 2026-27 academic year—as of March 15. Due to low initial allocations in mid-February, many boards filed appeals, arguing that they needed more money to provide their services to the student body. Despite these efforts, few secured their requested budgets and many saw significant cuts.
Groups that receive FinApp funding include the Advisory Board for Club Sports, Performing Arts Advisory Committee, Lecture Fund, Outdoor Education (OE), and nine others. Those organizations that oversee various clubs, like Media Board, are now beginning the process of internal allocations.
This year’s FinApp allocation process, according to GUSA’s FinApp Chair Han Li (MPP ’27), was particularly difficult as funding for club boards remained the same: $1,331,786. This comes even as the amount requested by advisory boards climbs year after year.
Li had anticipated a larger budget, as funding has steadily increased by around 4% since 2022. FinApp’s money comes from the Student Activities Fee, a $101 cost paid through tuition, but because more Hoyas went abroad this year than usual, fewer students paid the fee.
At the same time, Li said academic departments that have historically provided support funding for some club events have “pulled that back,” as their own budgets tighten.
“It’s affecting all of our groups,” Li said. “It’s just been very difficult across campus to find money to just do events.”
Li said GUSA aims to distribute funds from students equitably and fairly, and it is their responsibility to both oversee allocations and ensure that funds are used correctly. While multiple organization members acknowledged and appreciated that this is a difficult task, they also expressed concern that the significant cuts could interrupt club programming.
Cuts to funding could impact club programming: OE, GUSA Executive, and Media Board
Organizations like GUSA Executive and OE, which rely solely on funds from GUSA’s allocation process, are particularly worried about how they’ll manage with diminished funding.
For GUSA President Darius Wagner (CAS ’27), this year’s allocations were concerning. GUSA Executive, which operates separately from GUSA’s FinApp, saw a 53% drop in their final allocation from last year’s.
“I think it was disheartening to see the amount of things that we had to take off with the level [of funding] that we’re currently given. What we could do with $15,000 versus $7,000,” Wagner said.
For GUSA Executive, their priority continues to be supporting clubs and organizations on campus, even if that takes from their budget. However, Wagner notes that the team still needs significant funding to be operational.
“I think having the funding that is the bedrock of what we can actually be a functional exec with is also really important, and we’re doing our due diligence to find our way to make our money work,” he said.
OE received $9,000—less than half of what they requested, and a 10% cut from FY26.
The funds, OE Guide Kyra Macomber (CAS ’28) explained, are necessary for guide preparation. The wilderness first responder training remains funded, so that the club can continue to partially subsidize the cost of the required course, but new pursuits, like climbing training, and traditions, like the end-of-semester capstone backpacking trip, are now uncertain.
Macomber is also worried that OE’s lack of funding could raise safety concerns. Following spring trainings, OE guides are expected to lead Georgetown’s Outdoor Pre-Orientation Program (GOPOP), which centers around a multi-day retreat to local sites. Currently, guides pay $250 out of pocket, but with budget cuts, training might become more expensive or less guides will be brought on to cover the reduction, as training is mandatory.
“It’s very much a risk for us to put people who only have classroom experience into that situation where it’s them, two other guides, and seven freshmen. So really, we can’t cut that kind of thing,” Macomber said.
Additionally, transportation for GOPOP was not funded by FinApp. While Li explained that FinApp does not typically fund GOPOP, Macomber expressed concerns over accessibility for the program. Given that the program already costs upwards of $400 for students interested in exploring the outdoors, organization members thought that FinApp would at least consider the appeal.
For Macomber, GOPOP was a Georgetown-defining experience. Raising costs for students to participate in the program or other OE-led initiatives would defeat the purpose of the club, she said.
“I would really hope that future students don’t feel like before they have even gotten to campus, there’s already a barrier in place for them to participate in student life,” she said. “College isn’t just a place for preparing for your career, it’s a place of personal exploration and reflection. Really building that idea of cura personalis is something OE really exemplifies, and I just sometimes wish in the allocation process that that was reflected a little bit more.”
The Media Board, which represents 13 campus organizations including student publications and WGTB Georgetown University Radio, also took a hit. They were awarded $81,818, a 13.88% decrease from FY26. While this is a larger decrease than previous budgeting changes for media, the Media Board Voting Officer representing The Georgetown Independent, Lorelei Schwarz (CAS ’29), highlighted that this outcome was, in some ways, anticipated.
“I think that we had expected maybe a little bit more, but we knew that this was going to be a difficult year for GUSA and I don’t think we expected a huge amount,” Schwarz said.
However, she worries about what the reduction of funding could mean for media organizations and students who want to participate in them.
“We want them to be able to focus on just producing what they can and being very open access,” Schwarz said. “We want as many students to be involved in media as possible and when we have to monetise the events that we’ve run, it makes it harder for students.”
Some growth in funding: McDonough Student Advisory Board and Center for Social Justice
Despite limitations on the overall funding pool, a few boards received increased budgets. The McDonough Student Advisory Board (MSAB), which oversees campus business clubs, saw a significant increase, up from $3,968. Although the $15,000 allocated by Finapp amounted to just 36.8% of its original request, due to “some concerns with MSAB operations which remain to be addressed,” according to the budget document, their allocation marked a 278% increase from FY26.
“This year, we gave more money to the MSAB,” Li said. “[This is the] continuation of a process to slowly integrate McDonough, McDonough student organizations, and the McDonough Student Advisory Board into the operations of GUSA.”
Although Li explained that the fiscal cycle is too “constrained” to lend more support, he believes that MSAB engagement—and funding requests—will increase in the future.
For the Center for Social Justice Advisory Board for Student Organizations (ABSO), FY27 brings $100,000 in funds, an increase from their initial allocation of $96,000 to cover 55 social justice-oriented organizations. ABSO’s request of $120,000 increased from FY26’s $96,000 request due to increased engagement, according to ABSO Chair Zoe Burke (CAS ’26).
“We’re having more organizations under us, growing them through our New Club Development process,” Burke said, referring to the applications to begin clubs at Georgetown. “We’re having programming at pre-pandemic levels and are having more members in them, they’re doing more activities, so that requires more funding as well.”
Burke also highlighted the use of the Center for Social Justice (CSJ) vans as a proponent for increasing allocation. CSJ, she explained, pays to use the vans, but does not cover maintenance for the vehicles. Though the organization pays a flat rate every year, that cost has increased from $30,000 to $45,000 for the next fiscal year.
“We’re having increased usage of the CSJ vans, and the CSJ van price has increased,” Burke said.
Though grateful for the increased funding after the appeals process, Burke expressed that the fulfillment of their initial request would have been ideal.
“We definitely wish we had our full $120,000 ask that we requested,” Burke said. “We’re very intentional in our financial requests to ask for what we need, internal review of the past nine fiscal years, analyzing our status. To support our mission of supporting the social justice initiatives of our organizations, we are grateful that we received more money after the appeals process.”
The largest receiver: Advisory Board for Club Sports
Some organizations, like the Advisory Board for Club Sports (ABCS), received significant portions of the $1,300,000 funding pool. ABCS was allocated $300,000, equal to 22.53% of the total available funding.
No change: Georgetown Program Board and Campus Ministry
Some clubs saw their allocation remain consistent from last year. Georgetown Program Board’s (GPB) $138,000, one of the largest allocations, was similar to last year’s budget and a 94% fulfillment of their request.
GPB President Amelia Giordano (SFS ’26) highlighted the organization’s self-assurance in receiving its funding, given their levels of engagement.
“While the FinApp process depends on the level of funding GUSA has to work with, which is never guaranteed to be the same as in the past, we felt confident the FinApp chairs would recognize GPB’s necessary contribution to student life and help support us to continue our mission,” Giordano said.
The Campus Ministry Student Forum, which received $34,000 in initial allocations with no additional funding in appeals, also saw no change in its budget from last year. Although the organization originally requested $42,780, FinApp expressed concerns regarding their transportation, food, and catering costs, believing that those expenditures should be reduced before they increase their funding.
Internal reductions: Lecture Fund and Performing Arts Advisory Committee
The Georgetown Lecture Fund was allocated $73,150, marking a 5% decrease from the previous fiscal year. As explained by the organization’s treasurer, Jackie Early (CAS ’26), this was a choice made by the Lecture Fund itself due to a failure to meet their internal “Parity Policy,” which aims for 50% of speakers to come from racially marginalized backgrounds.
“We failed to meet that policy pretty much every year since 2020, so our chair had the idea to implement and concretize that policy through a slashing hard budget 5%, if we feel we have not met the values of charity,” Early said.
Though self-imposed, Early believes that the decrease in budget will make it difficult to bring in speakers.
“Our budget has been on the decline for several years now, which has made it quite difficult because speakers have only become more expensive,” Early said.
The Performing Arts Advisory Committee similarly reduced its overall request from FY26, requesting $152,752 rather than the $167,877 requested last fiscal year. To FinApp, this choice suggested “a more precise and responsible budget,” based on prior spending patterns. While the organization did receive $125,000, marking a 6.84% increase from FY26, ad hoc or “as-needed funding” was reduced from $35,000 to $10,000.
Looking toward next year
Despite disappointment from many club leaders, Wagner encourages his team and other organizations to continue producing high-quality programming despite constraints.
“There’s only so much time you can spend wallowing in the bleakness of it all, versus getting to work and trying to find, ‘How can we leverage our institutional connections to find ways to fill some of these resource gaps, and put on events on a restricted budget?’” Wagner said.
