employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Amazing work experience. Poor management and work/life balance. - Caseworker International Rescue Committee Employee Review

3.0
11 Oct 2019
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Great population to work with. Most of the employees are highly dedicated. You are given a lot of opportunities to create programming to address needs of the clients as they arise. If you can be a caseworker here you will be able to do any job in the social service industry.

Cons

High turnover due to poor management causes them to lose their best employees. It is an attractive place to work so they attract talented workers, however they burnout rate is high and they move on quickly. You are only allowed to work 37.5 hours, and that is not enough time to complete all your work. Overtime pay is rarely given. The culture that has been created by management is you are expected to work overtime to complete all your work without receiving pay.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
25 Dec 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
22 Apr 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