employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Pew Charitable Trusts

Is this your company?

While it has the money to accomplish great good, it is hindered by its antiquated rules and regulations - Anonymous employee Pew Charitable Trusts Employee Review

1.0
3 Sept 2013
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Pew has an enormous wealth of money, meaning that campaigns have the ability to spend money to achieve results that for many non-profits is their entire operational budget. For many who have worked in nonprofit sectors before, the looming threat of finances always damages campaigns, but you will not find that at Pew.

Cons

You cannot receive any form of promotion until you have been at Pew over two years. After that you cannot receive a second promotion for another three years. Please note it is extremely difficult to even receive a promotion due to Human Resources extremely lengthy rules and organization charts. If you are international, do not even think of applying to any US based jobs- Pew does not issue work visas. It is so narrow-minded as an institution that it believes all of it talent should be from the United States. In 1950s perhaps this would be tolerated but this jingo-centric view has no place in the 21st century.

Explore other reviews about Pew Charitable Trusts

5.0
15 Feb 2025
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Benefits, mission, leadership, quality colleagues.

Cons

The change and upward movement is slow going.

2.0
9 Feb 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Pew offers meaningful opportunities to work on important policy issues, and it has strong resources to support that work. Many colleagues are highly intelligent, capable, and deeply committed to the mission. For people early in their careers or those looking to gain exposure to public policy and research-driven advocacy, Pew can be a valuable place to learn (but not necessarily grow). Benefits are excellent as well.

Cons

The workplace culture is deeply affected by favoritism—advancement and recognition often go to a small, preferred group rather than being based on merit or impact. Rigid processes, layered hierarchy, and risk-averse decision-making make it difficult to innovate or achieve meaningful success. DEI efforts often feel more performative than substantive, with initiatives being quietly diluted or “whitewashed” to avoid political risk under the current administration. While there is a great deal of talent within the organization, the institution as a whole lacks ambition and is often unwilling to push boldly for change. The work environment can be toxic, with sexual and verbal harassment toward younger staff, pervasive microaggressions against people of color, and routine ageist comments. HR does not adequately protect those impacted and instead appears focused on minimizing risk and protecting leadership.

1
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All