employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Talented staff burnt out and overwhelmed by Operation Allies Welcome - Project Coordinator International Rescue Committee Employee Review

4.0
Aug 25, 2022
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

The IRC has a good benefits package and strong duty of care standards for the humanitarian aid sector. There are some truly incredible staff keeping this ship afloat, and the clients are the strongest people you will ever meet.

Cons

The IRC in the US is experiencing some serious growing pains after most offices doubled in size to respond to Afghan parolee resettlement and the Biden administration increasing the refugee admissions cap. Responding to this need is absolutely vital, and it's not the IRC's fault that the immigration system is such a mess - but the rapid growth and many months of overwork have led to staff burnout and disorganization.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
May 24, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Very valuable insights in conducting work. Provides valuable input.

Cons

None that I can think 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