After a near-collapse last spring, Harvard’s club funding process has begun anew under the Harvard Undergraduate Association (HUA). Although they secured a record amount of money from the Dean of Students Office (DSO), funding delays and concerns from clubs present new challenges as the new student government looks to earn the trust of its constituents.
The HUA is responsible for ensuring that hundreds of clubs on campus receive sufficient financial support from the Harvard administration. When a campaign to “defund the UC” last spring resulted in presidential and constitutional turnover, students and members of the former Undergraduate Council (UC) raised concerns about how club funding would operate. A split amongst members of the previous council led to conflicting communication and a sudden shutdown of the entire process, throwing clubs into uncertainty as their financial pipeline dried up. The crisis was only resolved after an impromptu transition meeting created a temporary team to cover for the rest of the semester.
The HUA hoped to launch a more consistent club funding process this fall as its first major initiative and a test of its task force-based approach to governance. “We heard from a lot of student organization leaders that the previous process was somewhat confusing and disorienting,” said Finance Chair Xander Zurovec ’25. He said the HUA hoped that implementing an early info session, centralized requests on the Airtable software platform, and comprehensive funding spreadsheets would alleviate the more ad hoc approach of the UC.
One of the most drastic changes between the two funding approaches was in the application timeline. While the UC required clubs to apply for funding on an as-needed basis, the HUA split the grant request process into a semesterly and monthly system. Clubs that planned their events and expenses at the start of the semester could apply for funding on a semesterly basis, whereas those seeking retroactive grants can apply for them every month. Request sheets were itemized for all planned expenses and individual ten-minute interviews for clubs applying were conducted in a two-day window by the Finance Chair and the two HUA co-presidents. At the time of publication, the HUA website lists three members on the Finance committee, although the HUA stated that thirteen people in total from both the taskforces and other HUA members helped with the process.
The original semester schedule required completed applications by September 14th, interviews by September 21st, and final funding recommendation to club leaders by the 28th. The finance guidelines stated that funding would become available five business days after receiving the allotment from DSO sometime “in late September.”
However, while interviews were conducted and finished on time, the DSO meeting, funding recommendation dates, and final updates were pushed to weeks later than anticipated. An email from the HUA stated that the full funding determination would come on October 3rd, but one a week later, another email stated it would be “sometime after October 3rd.”
Zurovec explained that the delays were due to restructuring within the DSO. “Student Activities Fee Proposals were pushed to September 29th so that the SAFAC could involve the newly hired Executive Director for Administration in the DSO,” he said. “This was not anticipated on either the DSO or the HUA’s end and is not a delay that we anticipate will occur in the future.” After receiving the funding allotment from the DSO on the 29th, the HUA finalized the allotments over the next few days.
On October 6th, the Finance Team emailed all of the applicants that every club would receive a cutback from what was initially requested. “Due to the fact that 200+ student organizations apply for more than $550,000+ in funding with only $157,500 to disburse during this semesterly cycle, we could not fulfill anyone’s request in its full amount,” the email stated, with each club getting a “provisional” amount of funding.
According to data provided by the HUA, the average semesterly funding request for a club was $4,725.36 while the median funding request was $3,050 (though the average was somewhat skewed by clubs with particularly large amounts). The HUA requested $682,000 from the Student Activity Fee Advisory Committee (SAFAC) and received $550,000. The total was $225,000 for each semester, with $157,000 for semesterly funding and $22,500 for each of the monthly funding cycles per semester.
While the funding announcement email noted that this was still $50,000 more than the prior UC had secured, the result was unexpected given that the HUA had not announced any expected value during the application process, leading many clubs to budget without knowing if their requests would be fulfilled.
Although the HUA had estimated that they would likely receive around $135,000-$150,000 in funding given past semesters, they chose to not give a maximum funding estimate for any of the individual clubs—save a maximum for club sports and some individual items carried over from the UC funding guidelines—given the uncertainties they faced from the DSO on how much funding they would get.
Zurovec stated that the interviews were meant to clarify the eligibility of funding requests made on an application, rather than indicate how much they would receive from their request. “I think that definitely could’ve been more clearly communicated, because I heard from some clubs that they were a bit confused and thought ‘this is your full funding amount.’ In part, I think that was something we could have probably done better.”
While funding distribution went mostly according to plans, clubs requesting checks did not receive them until October 18th, over a month and a half into the semester. Moreover, the HUA did not initially have a second account signer ready during the first day of check distribution, which was required for any banks to accept them.
Despite the record amount of funding, some individual clubs expressed concern to the HUA that their request had fallen short, though they declined to speak on the record about details. The applications did not differentiate which expenses were essential for club operations at a minimum, which led to some confusion after the post-interview funding cuts. The HUA provided additional sources of funding on their website and promised to work out any help needed, but several clubs are actively petitioning for assistance.
Zurovec also mentioned that budgeting was challenged by the increasing number of opt outs from the Student Activities Fee, a $200 fee that is used by the DSO to provide both HUA funding but also funding house homecoming committees and other student life expenses on campus.
“This semester, we saw a little over $200,000 worth of opt outs (~1,000 students) from the SAF. In previous years (around more than 4 years ago), when there were less opt outs, student governments saw around $600,000 or more in funding from the SAFAC,” commented Zurovec. He also encouraged student organizations to credit the HUA for funding on any promotional posters in the hopes of convincing more students to pay the fee for future clubs.
Funding remains ongoing, with the November applications remaining the last batch of the semester.
A Harvard Political Review poll in September revealed that the HUA’s approval rating was 14.6%, up from 9.6% the prior winter. The HUA is optimistic that the club funding process will only improve in future semesters. “I’m hoping that our continued and ongoing efforts to refine finance in our student government will help build this trust back up again,” Zurovec said.
Disclosure: I am the treasurer for HUGG (Harvard Undergraduate Gaming Club), and was thus involved in the club funding process and participated in a funding interview meeting.
Ryan Golemme ’23 (ryangolemme@college.harvard.edu), who knows to pick a cheaper pizza place next time, writes news for the Independent.