Pros
Strong external brand and a group of capable, committed volunteers and staff who are doing their best to hold things together under increasingly difficult conditions.
Cons
There is no clear strategy guiding this organization. The problem is not just vision, it’s execution. Basic discipline is gone, and decisions get made, reversed, or quietly abandoned. Work gets redone, priorities don’t hold, and teams spend more time re-interpreting direction than actually delivering. This is a failure at the very top. Since the transition to new executive leadership, direction has become reactive and inconsistent. Decisions are made quickly, with little context and no visible accounting for tradeoffs or downstream impact. When disruption follows, ownership disappears and the consequences roll downhill. Recent mass layoffs have made this situation undeniable: a significant portion of the workforce was cut with no meaningful reprioritization. Everything stayed urgent, and workload didn’t just increase - it became structurally unrealistic. That’s not a bandwidth issue, but poor leadership judgment. The response was to tell remaining staff to “work our a**es off” to maintain output, without raises, performance reviews, or any acknowledgment of what was being asked. The mission makes this worse, not better. Employees are asked to give more because of the mission, while leadership cuts the very programs that drove meaningful development impact and shifts focus toward revenue. That tradeoff isn’t explained, but imposed, and the cost is carried internally. The outcome is predictable: experienced people leave, and institutional knowledge walks out the door. What's left is a culture of fear. People manage up, stay quiet, and hope not to be next. Those who remain burn out trying to stabilize a system that has no stability underneath it. Burnout isn't an exception: it's the model. Communication reflects the same pattern in that it lacks clarity, arrives too late to act on, and is managed for optics over substance.