The Baltimore Community Foundation (BCF) launched the Maryland Tough, Baltimore Strong Key Bridge Fund shortly after the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, initially suggesting that the fund would assist the families of the six construction workers who died and the two who survived. The disaster, which occurred when a cargo ship struck the bridge, prompted widespread grief and community mobilization. In response, BCF initiated a fundraising campaign that garnered significant support from businesses, churches, philanthropists, and sports teams like the Ravens and Orioles, ultimately raising $16 million.
The fund was named after a phrase used by Maryland Governor Wes Moore and was promoted as the leading relief initiative in the wake of the tragedy. Early communications from BCF emphasized its intent to support the victims’ families, with language on its website and in emails indicating that the foundation would focus on long-term needs for the survivors and the children of the deceased workers. The $10 million contribution from the Ravens and Orioles was made under the impression that it would aid the affected families.
However, over time, BCF redirected the fund’s focus without explicitly notifying the public or donors that victims’ families would not receive any of the money. Instead, the organization allocated resources to port workers, a planned human services center in Dundalk, and a museum exhibit memorializing the bridge disaster. The shift, according to BCF, was made out of respect for the city’s mayor, Brandon Scott, whose office had established a separate fund managed through the Baltimore Civic Fund dedicated solely to assisting the victims’ families.
BCF’s associate vice president, Becky Eisen, explained that once they realized the mayor’s office was handling direct aid to the families, they chose not to duplicate those efforts. Despite this, critics argue the foundation’s messaging during the initial fundraising campaign created the impression that part of the $16 million would go to the families. As late as summer 2024, the fund’s donation page still mentioned support for victims’ children and survivors, though this reference was quietly removed by fall.
The city-managed fund raised about $1.1 million, significantly less than BCF’s campaign, but that money was used directly to support the families through rent, funeral costs, childcare, and food. One widow described the assistance as a “lifeline” that gave her time to grieve and care for her children. Despite public statements suggesting collaboration between the foundation and the mayor’s office, no financial support was ever transferred from BCF to the city fund.
Some donors expressed shock and dismay upon learning that none of the BCF-raised funds reached the victims’ families. Jennifer Glose, who donated $10,000, said she felt sick after discovering this. Elected officials, such as City Council member Odette Ramos, criticized the decision, calling it shameful and urging BCF to rectify the situation by allocating funds to the families.
However, BCF claims that all $16 million from the Maryland Tough, Baltimore Strong Fund has already been committed, making any future reallocation impossible. While some grant recipients have not been publicly announced, major disbursements include $4.4 million to support port workers, $1 million for a human services center, and $570,000 for a bridge disaster exhibit at the Baltimore Museum of Industry.
Despite earlier claims of transparency and coordination with the mayor’s office, the foundation has faced backlash for its lack of follow-through in aiding the families directly impacted by the tragedy. The controversy raises questions about how charitable organizations manage expectations and communicate their changing priorities in the aftermath of public disasters.