Pros
Exposure to globally relevant issues (migration, security, reintegration) Remote work policy and flexible location model Some capable colleagues doing their best in a broken system
Cons
– Grants used to sustain the organization more than deliver impact: Seefar operates less like a mission-driven non-profit and more like a consultancy for hire but without the transparency. Many projects are designed to secure core funding or maintain staff salaries rather than meet genuine community needs. – Leadership profits from funding cycles: Project budgets are structured to disproportionately benefit core leadership through overheads, vague consultancy fees, and undisclosed internal contracts. Donor compliance is superficial what matters is the next win. – No financial transparency: Staff are kept in the dark about how budgets are allocated. There’s no insight into overhead, reserves, or leadership compensation. Any attempts to question this are seen as disruptive or naïve. – Mission drift and opportunism: Thematic areas shift constantly based on where the money is not on long-term strategy or actual expertise. Seefar will claim to be a specialist in any domain if it means securing a grant. – No meaningful accountability: There is no board oversight, no independent audit shared with staff, and no internal mechanisms to hold leadership to account. Ethical governance is functionally absent.