employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

The people make the IRC what it is - Anonymous employee International Rescue Committee Employee Review

3.0
Jul 23, 2018
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

The staff at the IRC is diverse and brings to the table so many different perspectives and experiences. Everyone is passionate about social justice and advocating for the rights of refugees. The work is challenging and there is a lot of it. IRC hires many former interns and volunteers.

Cons

Your experience depends on your supervisor and team (some supervisors are better/more attentive than others). As an intern or AmeriCorps, you have to fight to have your voice heard. The political climate makes the work extremely difficult to complete due to severe restrictions in staffing and funding. The refugee resettlement field in general is under attack and it impacts morale of the staff. Little or no work life balance - you are often required to work outside the typical 9-5 schedule.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
Mar 12, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Had a wonderful time interacting with the students and coworkers. Really appreciate the work of the IRC in supporting migrants.

Cons

No Cons to speak of

2.0
Apr 22, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

You will meet some amazing and passionate people here who are truly there for the mission. Many came to this country as refugees and immigrants themselves and continue to devote their lives to helping others going through similar experiences. If you end up on the right team, it's an extremely rewarding job.

Cons

Unfortunately, the HQ upper management makes it a toxic place to work. VPs regularly undercut each other publicly (including at all-team meetings and gossiping negatively with staff), especially when potential job cuts were on the horizon. C-Suite didn't listen to staff concerns about upper management and didn't investigate major departures by dedicated staff who left due to poor management despite their dedication to the mission. Leaders picked favorites, ignoring work performance (excusing mediocre performance in some, having high standards for others), and preferred yes-men over staff who wanted to think more critically about the work. Projects were pushed too quickly, despite concerns that it could be detrimental to clients. Positions given to unqualified internal staff who wouldn't be interviewed for the role as external candidates. Senior leaders (director and above) are more focused on keeping their jobs than the mission and will use lower staff work for their own career growth/safety. DEI didn't seem to apply for senior leader roles, where there was little, if any, diversity.

4
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All