If You Made It Through the Interview, Take the Job
Pros
Maybe my perspective is a bit skewed. I started working at uAspire coming off a terrible experience at a different nonprofit organization, so I was relieved to find out they offered exceptional benefits, lots of time off, and I didn't even have to lend my own money to the organization in order to buy basic supplies. Even so, as with so many nonprofits, really the thing that makes uAspire great is the people they have working for them. If you're reading this review, you're likely familiar with the grueling interview process. If you're not, it's 3 rounds, and could include a presentation to a few of the leadership team. It's tough, but this process works. The people who make it through our passionately committed to uAspire's work, and as a bonus, they often come from education, and development background, so they're often even very empathetic folks who truly care about their colleagues. The organization in recent years has also been exceptionally well funded. If you have had a career in nonprofits, chances are you've worked for a few organizations that have not been so fortunate, and you know that a well-funded organization with a strong network of donors, and an effective development team, means a nice office space for you to work in, not having to question if you'll have the resources you need to do your job, and being rather confident that you'll get your regular paycheck and job security. Now, that paycheck might not be quite as large as you were hoping, but hey, it's still a nonprofit. Also, time off, you know? There's a decent amount of it. I was an entry level direct service staff member, and I still got 15 vacation days, 3 personal days, unlimited sick days (don't abuse it, or you'll lose it) lots of holidays, and the office closes entirely for the week between Christmas and New Years. Any time you don't use can be rolled over, but "you should really take PTO," says everyone at uAspire. If you're really into social justice, this is also an excellent place to be. There are lots of frank and open discussion about race, inequality, uAspire's role in combating the problems and inequities in our society that drive the people that work there to do this work. The leadership team is even outwardly receptive to feedback on how uAspire can help to ensure that it doesn't fall into problems with attracting and retaining people of color. These conversations aren't always as visibly productive in the organizations as many would like, but it is nice that they happen at all, and that uAspire guarantees a safe, brave space to have them.
Cons
I don't know how much folks make who don't work directly with students, but direct service staff do not make a whole lot. In particular, I started out in a grant-funded role, so I started out making very little money. That said, my role transitioned into a permanent position, and accordingly, my compensative improved significantly. Incidentally, this happens a lot in uAspire - folks are hired on in grant-funded positions, and then if they do well, and there's money to keep them (and there often is), they get to stay. All this to say is compensation is not spectacular, but it is adequate. Also, my hours were weird. I worked most days from 10am to 6pm, but at least two days out of the week, I worked from 12pm to 8pm. This might appeal to a lot of twenty-somethings working their first job out of college, but it put a strain on my personal relationship, and during the winter, it was particularly brutal. Burnout does happen too, and mid level staff who manage the advisors and report to directors sometimes unwittingly contribute to this. They are often very good at putting student-centeredness at the forefront of their staff management practices (as they should), but this often comes at the expense of thinking about the needs of the advisors they manage. Working with students is tough, whether you did it in person or virtually. It's not glamorous, and it most likely isn't what you want your career to be forever, so it's important for the managers remember where most direct staff members are in their careers and lives, or they will burn out. Because uAspire is so collaborative, if direct service staff start to burnout (as many will), it will have a profound impact on the remaining staff. Many will feel as though they need to pick up the staff, and the added work, stress, and resentment, while not seeing a future career path with the organization, will make it difficult to retain those who work the hardest. uAspire does talk up a big game when it comes to diversity and inclusion, and it's all well and good that the leadership team does outwardly project their efforts to make uAspire a diverse place, but in practice, they often fail. They struggle to retain the talents of young men of color in particular to serve in direct service roles. Also troubling is the lack of diversity on the leadership team itself (all members are white). The leadership staff set a goal to themselves of increasing the diversity of their ranks, specifically in terms of racial diversity, but were unsuccessful in meeting that goal and remain all white. I think most reasonable folks at the organization understand that nonprofit leaders are at a point in their careers where they can expect to be in their roles for a long time, overseeing projects that will take years to complete, and so it would be difficult to change the staff on the leadership quickly without inventing new arbitrary roles. The problem is that the leadership team restructured recently, and added a few new members who were also white. I don't think anyone begrudges the new members of leadership team, or doubts that they were deserving of those roles... but the optics are bad. It's frustrating, and the CEO lamented the failure of the leadership team to add diversity to it's ranks at an all-staff meeting, but when you hire diverse folks who care a lot about social justice to work in direct service roles, I think it would be better to be honest and admit that the leadership team is unlikely to change much any time soon, as opposed to be pandering by promising diversity on the leadership team that I don't think very many people actually think is coming.