To be avoided. - Anonymous employee IMPACT Initiatives Employee Review

Depending on base, the work can be interesting. Quality of data/research varies, but is often well-presented. High career mobility (but varies, not based on skill/experience but on filling staffing gaps as they arise)

Chronically understaffed, often leading employees to work 70+ hours a week, at low wages. This is the standard, not the exception. -Very poor work-life balance, high rates of burnout. Poor benefits and living conditions. -HQ is out of touch, in every sense. They are not helpful when issues arise and expect the burntout staff in-country to handle everything by just working more and sacrificing their personal life and mental health. -You can request 'surge' support from HQ, but rarely will it happen. Even if your mission can afford the surge, they prioritise which missions they support based on how much money the mission brings to HQ and their political/financial interests. -They are primarily concerned with expanding their portfolio, not with implementing quality projects or filling information gaps. -Cult-like dedication required to the organisation and your complaints will be ignored or reframed to gaslight you. -High-skilled national staff rarely get opportunities to expatriate, however they pretend this is a goal of theirs. -HR/Finance units at HQ are understaffed and often don't even respond to your requests/questions. -They will lie shamelessly during recruitment process.

- It is a guaranteed job for the duration of your contract - Opportunity to work in challenging contexts

- Understaffing and inexperienced management lead to a nonstop culture of putting out fires (even if they aren't actual fires). This makes proactive planning or stabilization of existing projects impossible. - Lack of ownership over projects due to program micromanagement and high turnover - Compensation was not appropriate for the amount of time worked, often winding up less than $10/hr. - Poor admin led to regular issues with receipt of per diems and food allowances in a site without ATMs, leaving staff needlessly worried about food/expenses. This extended to issues paying national staff, leading some to quit - Issues managing visas for staff, stranding multiple people outside the country - Poor R&R package that essentially makes you pay to on a required vacation. - Assessments are mostly conducted without regard for whether or not the data will ever be used. This led to a lot of 200+ question assessments without regard for survey fatigue that struck me as exploitative of vulnerable populations