employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Program Coordinator - Anonymous employee International Rescue Committee Employee Review

4.0
Feb 15, 2017
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Collaborative, team-oriented environment working with amazing people from all over the world. Very rewarding, fulfilling work. Challenging, dynamic, different things to do every day, lots of moving parts and opportunities to be creative and try new things. Try to focus on best practices. Good benefits including paid parental leave, retirement, health, dental, etc plus personal days and floating holidays.

Cons

Not a lot of opportunities to advance. The pay is a little low. Stress can be high and sometimes it can be hard to find interpreters and communicate effectively. A lot of bureaucracy working with HQ- takes a lot of time to vet grants and other proposals. IT is offsite, which can be challenging sometimes. Lots of paperwork, casefiles and databases.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
Dec 25, 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Everyone is so nice here.

Cons

we have a lot of time to collaborate one project

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