When Generosity Meets Obscurity: The Need for Transparency After Mass Shootings—The Case of Lewiston, Maine

On October 25, 2023, Lewiston witnessed one of the most devastating mass-shootings in the state’s history: 18 people murdered, 13 more wounded. In the tragic aftermath, millions of dollars poured in — donations from all corners of the country, offered in compassion, in grief, in hope that victims and their families would be assisted in tangible ways. But now, nearly two years later, those who were directly impacted say they are still waiting — and they’re asking: What happened to the money?

Leading the charge is Amy Sussman, aunt of Max Hathaway, a victim in the Lewiston shooting, who discussed the mismanagement of the Lewiston Victims Fund on NewsRadio WGAN.

Despite raising $6.6 million, only 74% went to victims and their families, with $1.9 million allocated to 29 nonprofits. Nonprofits used funds for various purposes, including building walls and security cameras. Sussman criticized the Maine Community Foundation for lack of transparency and misallocation of funds. She highlighted the need for direct assistance to victims, including counseling, and called for accountability and redirection of funds to meet victims’ needs.

What We Know

The Maine Community Foundation (MCF) created the “Lewiston-Auburn Area Response Fund” to manage donations following the shooting. Within that umbrella, two distinct streams were created:

• A Victims & Families Fund (for those directly killed, wounded, or family members). (Maine Community Foundation)

• A Broad Recovery & Organizations Fund (for community-based nonprofits and recovery activities more broadly). (Maine Community Foundation)

• MCF said more than $6.6 million was raised in total. (WMTW)

• Of that, about $4.7 million went to 162 individuals (victims, families, survivors) under the Victims & Families Fund. (WMTW)

• VictimsFirst endorsed this centralized victims' fund, where 100% was given directly to victims/survivors.

• Meanwhile, approximately $1.9 million was directed to 29 nonprofits under the Broad Recovery & Organizations Fund. (WMTW)

• We did not, and do not, endorse nonprofits capitalizing on mass violence. We believe that nonprofits should prepare for mass violence incidents and have funds set aside to provide for their communities if mass violence occurs. In communities where there are insufficient funds to provide services for those directly impacted by mass violence, donations collected in the wake of a mass violence incident should be used for the sole purpose of providing those services to victims/survivors. We also believe that there should be a moratorium on new nonprofits in the immediate aftermath of mass violence to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

What’s the Concern?

Many survivors and family members had concerns over the portion of the donated funds that went to nonprofits rather than to them. They say the messaging from the foundation and public-appeals implied that “100% of funds collected” were going directly to victims and families.

“We trusted this foundation, and now, because they were not forthcoming about how the funds would be distributed, we all discovered our own needs were not prioritized,” said Kelsay Hathaway. “It feels like our tragedy was just used to take advantage of people and their willingness to help the families in their time of need” (WMTW).

Furthermore, some of the nonprofits that received monies under the “Broad Recovery” label have been described as having no clear connection to victim services or directly assisting victims of the shooting. Some members of the Fund's steering committee even work for the nonprofits that received funds, representing a conflict of interest that should never have been allowed.

Even state-legislators and former officials have called for an inquiry. (The Maine Wire)

Why This Matters for Victims’ Rights & Trust

Donors give to help make a difference in the lives of those directly impacted: victims' families and survivors. Victims and their families step forward in vulnerability, expecting transparency, integrity, and alignment with the promise made to them — that the donations collected and raised are for them. When funds are diverted or re-allocated without clarity, the consequences are profound:

• Re-victimization: Already traumatized individuals feel sidelined, betrayed.

• Erosion of trust: When a foundation or intermediary fails to ensure clarity, donors may hesitate in future crises; victims may lose faith in systems designed to assist them.

• Inequity, injustice, and ethical betrayal: When the most directly affected are not prioritized, the moral contract is broken.

  
  

At VictimsFirst, we believe fairness, transparency, and equity must be foundational in every victims-fund structure. 100% of all donations collected in the aftermath of mass violence should go directly to victims/survivors, including interest. The Lewiston case underscores what happens when this core principle is not followed.

Key Lessons & What Should Change

1. One Bucket: 100% Directly to Victims

   • Instead of creating two buckets, one for victims and one for the community, local communities should understand the financial need of victims/survivors and the importance of collecting as much as possible for victims' families and survivors.

   • Local nonprofits that serve potential victims and survivors should proactively plan, prepare, and reserve resources for potential mass-violence emergencies. Preparation is essential to ensure a compassionate, coordinated response—rather than reactive fundraising in the aftermath of mass violence or the appearance of capitalizing on tragedy.

     
     

2. Victims-centric governance

   • Steering committees and advisory boards responsible for allocating funds should be composed primarily of survivors and family members from prior mass tragedies. Their majority representation ensures that victims’ needs are prioritized and not overridden by outside interests.

     
     

3. Transparent reporting & accountability

   • An audit must always be done and made public, showing: how many victims/families are served and how monies are distributed.

   • Regular updates should be easy to find, and victims/families must be notified of all fund decisions in real time.

     
     

4. Legal/ethical oversight

   • Foundations must comply with charitable trust laws, allow for and respect donor intent, and ensure that victims’ rights are safeguarded.

   • Publicly-accessible, independent audits that are available in full should be part of every nonprofit's design, especially when millions of dollars are involved.

   
   

The tragedy in Lewiston is a vivid reminder not only of the tremendous human cost of mass violence — but of the responsibilities that follow generosity.

When donors give in sorrow and solidarity, when survivors and families step into vulnerability, the promises made must match the outcomes delivered.

At VictimsFirst, we stand with the families in Lewiston who are demanding answers. We call on the Maine Community Foundation and similar nonprofits everywhere to repair trust, to honor donor intent, and to center victims in every decision.

After mass violence, it's clear what motivates donors to give ... the wish to Directly Assist the victims and survivors. Promises made must not be broken. Transparency isn’t optional — it’s essential.