In 2023, following passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies nationwide to better inform you about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky and Georgia as well, and efforts on behalf of this legislation continue in additional states in 2025.
We encourage donors to contact us with any questions about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent we may have missed.
This month’s Donor Intent Watch begins with a controversy regarding the distribution of funds raised by the Baltimore Community Foundation in the wake of the Key Bridge collapse and closes with laudable fundraising advice for charitable organizations from Jim Langley of Langley Innovations.
The Special Challenge of Disaster Fundraising
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Red Cross established the “Liberty Fund” to raise money through public appeals whose wording implied all funds raised would be used for 9/11 relief. Its website specifically mentioned “immediate and emerging efforts of the American Red Cross to alleviate the human suffering brought on by the attacks of September 11.” The Liberty Fund attracted well over $500 million, but Red Cross leadership then suggested a considerable portion of the funds be set aside for “the aftermath,” including preparedness for future terrorist attacks.
The resulting public outrage led to the resignation of the Red Cross CEO in late October and Congressional hearings in early November. In mid-November 2001, the Red Cross reversed its plans, pledging the release of the entire Liberty Fund to families and victims of 9/11. Interim president Harold Decker released a statement declaring, “We deeply regret that our activities over the past eight weeks have not been as sharply focused as America wants, nor as focused as the victims of this tragedy deserve.”
What Decker could not fix, however, was a widespread and lingering mistrust of the American Red Cross. Unfortunately, fundraising in the wake of a disaster or tragedy can still fall short when it comes to honoring donor intent.
On March 26, 2024, a container ship struck one of the piers of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, causing its complete collapse and the death of six maintenance workers who were repairing the roadway at the time of the collision. Two maintenance workers survived. In response, the Baltimore Community Foundation began to request donations to the “Maryland Tough, Baltimore Strong Key Bridge Fund.”
The initial appeal claimed money raised would be used to help the families of the six workers who died in the collapse as well as the two survivors and their families. In addition, the community foundation promised support from the fund for first responders and their families, port workers and their families, small businesses negatively affected by the collapse and “memorializing the tragedy.” Funds raised totaled $16.6 million, with the lead gift of $10 million coming from the owners of the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles.
On April 9, 2025, however, The Baltimore Banner reported that although the Baltimore Community Foundation continued to mention its support for the families of the deceased workers and survivors through the early summer of 2024, none of the $16 million raised was awarded to the families of the six victims or the two survivors. The community foundation has acknowledged this, saying the purpose of its fund was altered because of actions taken by the Baltimore mayor’s office following the bridge collapse.
In the wake of the tragedy, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott also engaged in fundraising and was able to disburse over $1.1 million for families and survivors through the Baltimore Civic Fund, a nonprofit controlled by the mayor’s office. That money, The Baltimore Banner explained, “has been used to cover funeral expenses, repatriation of remains, child care, remittance to families abroad, and housing, among other costs.”
Becky Eisen, associate vice president of marketing and public affairs for the Baltimore Community Foundation, told reporters, “When it was very clear they were handling this and their sole responsibility was for the families and for taking care of the families, we were like, ‘Great we will not try to do things for the families’ because we are also respecting them for taking the lead.”
But the inconsistencies in the community foundation’s actions and public statements tell a different story, and Eisen has acknowledged their fundraising messaging was “murky.” The Baltimore Banner published a screenshot of the community foundation’s website archived June 24 stating, “We will work with the Baltimore Civic Fund and credible efforts to strengthen the immediate relief provided to families. [Our] focus will be addressing residual and long-lasting effects for children of the deceased and survivors.”
Yet funds were neither awarded to the Baltimore Civic Fund nor provided for those children directly. When questioned about this, a community foundation spokesperson said the city had not applied for any such funding, but the foundation would certainly have “entertained that proposal.”
A full year after the bridge collapse, and with the Baltimore Civic Fund’s remaining resources expected to be drained by December, emotions still run high in Baltimore. One city councilor has demanded the Baltimore Community Foundation provide “significant dollars” to the families over the next two years. Mayor Scott – who has accused the community foundation of dishonesty – has been clear he would happily get such funds distributed. The community foundation, however, has already committed the funds remaining in the Maryland Tough, Baltimore Strong Key Bridge Fund.
Beyond the $8 million awarded to direct service organizations, small businesses and other relief efforts, $4.4 million was awarded in cash assistance to port workers, $1 million to Associated Catholic Charities to establish a human services center in the Dundalk community and $570,000 to the Baltimore Museum of Industry for an exhibit memorializing the bridge collapse. Shanaysha Sauls, president and CEO of the Baltimore Community Foundation, has stated the remaining awards will soon be made public.
In response to the negative publicity, The Baltimore Banner reported, Sauls sent an explanatory email to supporters of the community foundation, centering “the question of whether the families are getting what they need and whether the city has the resources to extend its support to them for two more years as requested.”
This, she added, “now has my full attention.” She assured her donors, “Honoring donor intent is a key value of BCF. If in any way our efforts suggest otherwise, it was far from our intent and was more a result of misunderstanding, uncertainty and speed, rather than malice.”
Sauls and Scott also released a joint statement to the community “We are aware of the request to extend financial assistance for the families,” they said. “The Baltimore Community Foundation and the mayor’s office are actively in conversations and are exploring options and engaging with partners to identify ways to continue supporting the families beyond the current timeline.”
The Fundraiser/Donor Relationship and Donor Intent
Standing between a donor and a charitable organization, fundraisers can find themselves playing many roles. Perhaps the most essential role is that of translator. Understanding and then successfully communicating the needs and wishes of both parties in the giving relationship is not an easy task. When performed well, however, it’s worth far more than the dollar value of the gift in question.
This is not the first time the Donor Intent Watch has featured the advice of Jim Langley of Langley Innovations, who has graciously permitted us to use a sample of quotes from his weekly newsletter of April 8, 2025.
“Now is the time to reflect and remind ourselves that philanthropy at its heart is about a social compact, an unwritten agreement between donors and doers to get something of mutual interest done. For that compact to work, most parties must be very clear about expectations of the other including what is to be achieved and at what cost. The more realistic and less self-serving each party is, the greater the chances of success and of sustaining the partnership.”
“Organizations should ask for support on the basis of what might be, not what is or was. Expecting loyalty is really assuming that an organization has already done enough to keep a donor’s support. In fact, the best way to sustain support and strengthen loyalty is to show the donor how continued giving will produce ever more impressive results.”
“Donors want their money to be put to work, whether it is to build an endowment or a new structure, to launch a new program or augment an existing one. They want their money to make a difference. When an organization fails to expend donated funds in a timely manner, for whatever reason, it owes the donor an explanation of why the delay occurred and when it will be overcome. It should never hold ‘current use’ gifts to generate earnings.”
“Whether it is determining the payout rate for endowments or deciding how much to spend on a holiday party, organizations, especially when they are about to make a decision that benefits internal stakeholders, should ask themselves, ‘What would our donors think?’ and search their souls for the right answer. Even when considering such questions it is wise to imagine a donor in the room, the kind that we all hold in great regard, and ask ourselves if we would be comfortable advancing the idea with he or she present. That, I believe is true stewardship.”
Read more from Jim Langley about donor/fundraiser relationships here and on his LinkedIn site.
