Pew Charitable Trusts Reviews

Cons

Pew has its very own culture that can take some getting used to

Cons

Bureaucratic systems slow down the work flow.

Cons

The institution lacks focus and is stunningly bureacratic. Think lots of lawyers and layers, more reviews than you can imagine and endless soul-crushing meetings. The lack of focus comes from the decision to replace a recently retired CEO with a long-time staffer who is herself quite near retirement. Acting, Temporary, whatever you call it, she's clearly not in it for the long haul. And a lot of the senior managers are in the same demographic. Also, there is no real opportunity for promotion into senior management from within. -- Just check, way too many senior managers were hired into their role after PEW declined to hire the internal candidate. Pew likes the shiny new thing, not the existing staff. (hence my suggestion above you only plan on a short stay -- 3 years tops) They also grabbed on the woke DEI vibe with a vengeance. In fairness, the place needed to work on that, but now, white, straight men and/or republicans need not apply. Pew is now so diverse they have every shade of democrat. Lots of that in this town, but this is a group that likes to proclaim it's non-partisan. I doubt there's a single project at Pew where they're working with Republicans on anything. They certainly have nothing in DC. That's unfortunate for Pew, but worse for a policy staffer who truly aspires to work across the political aisle and won't get that chance at Pew.

Cons

compensation, not transparent path to promotion, growth path

Cons

Extremely bureaucratic and hierarchical structures are still in place. This can really slow down the process of getting anything done. The organization is also extremely risk-averse, which plays a role in the overall slowness. Pay is fine, but raises are low and promotions are based solely on tenure with the organization.

Cons

It’s particular but worth noting the GR department might be the most devalued, understaffed, misunderstood, mismanagement, underfunded, and confused department in the entire institution. If you are a global nonprofit and have a GR department fighting for its life to stay relevant something is not adding up. Your mission is to do public good through policy change but virtually every senior level staff of GR was let go or left within the past few months? Riddle me that? How are you going to get anything tangibly accomplished? So many other organizations base their strategies off the advice what is their government relations shop reasonably accepting can be accomplished? But no keep writing all these papers no one will ever read and expect things to change.

Cons

Leadership acknowledged there is a "culture of fear" within the organization but did little to address it; staff have been demoted or laid off with little transparency; current environment program leadership has devalued projects, staff, and partners within the U.S.; DEI efforts are mostly lip service

Cons

Not a lot of training for newer professionals. Very much trial by fire.

Cons

Newer leadership is a bit shallow, seems to be on autopilot

Cons

Little room for career growth, not enough meaningful work to do, promotions are hard to come by