VictimsFirst's Position on Lewiston Response Fund

A Public Statement on the Lewiston-Auburn Area Response Fund by Mass Shooting Families and Survivors From Across the Nation

We will always stand with mass violence victims' families and survivors—because we are those families and survivors. 

VictimsFirst was founded, in part, because nonprofit organizations have a long and troubling history of exploiting mass shooting families at the most vulnerable moments of their lives—ourselves included. This pattern is not new. It has persisted for decades. We have documented this history in detail and even included what has happened in Lewiston (ME). This history is publicly available here: https://www.victimsfirst.org/revictimization.

For too long, segments of the nonprofit sector have treated mass casualty events as opportunities for institutional gain. In the absence of meaningful oversight and accountability, this has contributed to what survivors within our organization have aptly named the mass shooting industrial complex—a network of 501(c)(3) entities that benefit financially from tragedy while the victims’ families and survivors most directly impacted struggle to recover.

We understand these systems not in theory, but through lived experience.

From our earliest days, when we operated simply as a network of mass shooting survivors and families, we rejected this model. We deliberated extensively before becoming a nonprofit ourselves. Ultimately, we did so for one reason: to ensure donations could be tax-deductible, thereby increasing contributions and maximizing the amount of financial assistance that could be delivered directly to victims and survivors when they need it most. We knew this was important because the financial burden placed on mass violence families and survivors is often insurmountable. 

This commitment to ethical nonprofit leadership is reflected in our own practices. We prioritize direct financial assistance to victims, we ensure every penny, including interest, is delivered into the hands of victims, and we invest in full transparency—publishing monthly financial statements and ensuring the public can see exactly how every dollar is used.

Recent events in Lewiston, Maine, have put these principles into sharp focus. Our longstanding position—that 100% of funds collected/raised in the name of victims should go directly to victims—has been mischaracterized.

To be clear: while we supported the victims’ fund administered by the Mass Violence Survivors Fund, which delivered 100% of donations directly to victims, we did not and would not support the Maine Community Foundation’s fund designated for 29 nonprofits, only two of which actually assisted victims from the shooting. If we had supported it, we would have contributed to it. We did not.

We also believe that combining distinct funds under a single moniker creates confusion for victims’ families, survivors, donors, and the broader community. This is not in our Best Practices.

Furthermore, creating both a victims’ fund and a community fund is not a one-size-fits-all model, and in the rare circumstances where two funds are required, they must be clearly defined and communicated. Having a separate community fund is only a best practice in extreme circumstances and to fund a very specific unmet need directly resulting from the mass casualty event for which no other funding sources exist. 

This is only sometimes the case in the most marginalized and economically disadvantaged communities, as was the case in Buffalo, where a food desert was created after the Tops’ grocery store mass shooting shut the business down. This is not the case when there is a community foundation with millions of dollars being held in reserves like the Maine Community Foundation.

At VictimsFirst, we teach service-oriented nonprofits across the country that they should always be prepared to sustain their operations during crises. Well-funded community foundations, which often steward substantial financial resources, are specifically positioned to support local organizations during funding gaps. We also often remind our nonprofit partners that local, state, and federal grants become available to them after a mass casualty event; grants that are not available to individuals directly impacted by the tragedy because they are not a registered 501(c)(3). 

It is not the role of tragedy response funds—collected and raised in the name of victims or in the immediate aftermath of public devastation—to subsidize nonprofit operations without clear, direct benefit to those victims. This is a founding principle of VictimsFirst and shapes our own operations.

We believe nonprofit leadership carries a responsibility to serve—not to capitalize on tragedy.

We live this and lead by example. Using acts of mass violence as a fundraising mechanism for general operations, special projects, nonprofit infrastructure, or executive salaries undermines public trust and diverts critical resources away from those most in need. This is precisely why we fundraise for our own organization’s operational costs separately. A separate fund. A separate bank account. Clearly distinguishable from any of our victims' funds.

As we have previously expressed, we are also deeply concerned by the clear conflicts of interest and self-dealing within the Lewiston-Auburn Response Fund’s nonprofit Steering Committee and by the lack of accountability in how funds were distributed and spent. Grants issued without meaningful stipulations or reporting requirements stand in direct opposition to the principles of transparency and responsibility that victims and donors deserve. These decisions risk turning acts of mass violence into funding opportunities rather than moments requiring the focused, victim-centered response that we continuously advocate for.

Furthermore, VictimsFirst operates independently, supported by individuals and communities who believe in ethical, survivor-centered, trauma-informed work that empowers victims of mass violence. This independence allows us to speak openly and without compromise. We will not dilute our values to preserve relationships, secure potential funding sources, or avoid difficult truths. Mass violence victims deserve integrity—and we expect nothing less from the institutions that claim to serve us.

At the same time, we recognize and value the many nonprofit leaders who operate with integrity, transparency, and a genuine commitment to their communities. We have worked with many of these leaders from coast to coast, and we sing their praises everywhere we are needed. Ethical leadership does not require defensiveness—it is demonstrated through accountability, transparency, honesty, and action.

Moving forward requires accountability. We believe that the Maine Community Foundation should acknowledge and own the obvious mistakes in its process and take immediate corrective action.

Specifically, we stand with Lewiston families and survivors in calling for the $1.9 million distributed to nonprofits to be drawn from the organization’s own coffers and redistributed directly to the victims and survivors in Lewiston. This is an ethical and moral obligation that would provide urgent, tangible support to those who need it most.