Pros
I got to work with really amazing people within the staff and scholar population. There is a camaraderie and idealism that is really refreshing to witness and it acts as proof that change is entirely possible. The scholars within the program are some of the most determined, strong, creative, capable, and kind people I have ever met. And my coworkers have been some of the most thoughtful and hardworking women that have made me a better employee and person. I am grateful for the chance to have met them. There also seems to be a hope for change, as new leadership comes into the fold at SHE-CAN, it is just a matter of if these new perspectives are given the merit that they deserve.
Cons
I want to preface these cons with the fact that I needed to wait to write a comprehensive analysis of my time at SHE-CAN. Similar to most coordinator level staff, I had limited experience with the working world, due to being fresh out of college when I was hired. While hiring entry-level young people and giving them a professional foundation is a benefit to this org, it is equally met with the detriment of being taken advantage of as an employee. I was desperate for a position and professional experience in a social impact org, as were my coworkers. I was hired and soon found SHE-CAN to exhibit tendencies that are stuck at LEAST 10 years in the past. The reason I waited to write this review is because, since this org was my first job, I had no reference for what a workplace should be. Now, I have experience of starting a new job and I can more confidently speak to my time at SHE-CAN. A lot of people have charming and hellish stories about their first job out of college, and not only is working here exactly that, this org thrives off of being that. Here’s how: I had little to no autonomy and this is not hyperbolic. I needed an approval from the CEO to do anything. My private health information was shared with board members without my approval or knowledge. Absences for sickness or deaths are not taken personally nor seriously – rather seen as a hindrance to the CEO, that is typically made public. Everybody had to let the entire staff know when they were in for the day, out for the day, taking a break, lunch, etc. in the staff chat (I was unsure if this was industry standard, but I have been made aware that it, in fact, is NOT). The CEO picks and chooses on her own accord who is to work in office (in Mill Valley, CA) 5 days a week vs. who gets to work 3 days a week (2 days remote). Everybody who works for this org is to live by her schedule; she rarely allows staff (director to coordinator level) to take unscheduled remote days and yet decides 2-3 days before the weekend if she will be spending Fri-Mon working in Lake Tahoe. Since the staff is made up mostly of entry-level staff, there is not much to do about this situation. Coordinators are stuck in an annoying and toxic environment, their voices considered to be naïve, inexperienced, and therefore negligible. These Glassdoor reviews are not just disgruntled employees, they are everyone who has left in the last year and has used this platform as the only recourse for their experience. In the past year (March 2023 - March 2024), there has been a 30% increase in coordinator level roles, with a roughly 50% turn over rate. The executive level of this organization banks off of people who need this job but aren’t taken seriously. And, to be clear, I understand that a first job is supposed to be a learning experience. And that working at a smaller nonprofit is hard, of course. However, the points made in this review are to prove that, yeah, the nonprofit realm is no joke, but is it really THAT hard to modernize your workplace enough to make the main demographic of your staff stay? At a certain point, it is not the sensitivity of the staff that’s the problem, it is the insensitivity of the leadership. This org offered little other than a foundation. However, even with that granted foundation, the sentiment of the org’s overall mission will eventually expire like milk. It is based on the most definitive understanding of neo-colonial saviorism, the theoretical perspective that was seen as effective in the late 60s (refer to past reviews for an understanding of the org’s structure). Since then, the sphere of international development and education research shows that the way the US should contribute to these efforts is through promoting local community sufficiency (microloans, bolstering in-country systems, advocacy for cultural perspectives, etc.). Basically empowering local communities rather than forcing Western customs on vulnerable populations (i.e. sending conflict afflicted, international young women to US colleges and then forcing them to return home). Furthermore! This is a feminist organization! That picks and chooses how to interpret feminism in order to make the org look cool, innovative, and conscious. If it were truly a feminist organization, there would be research, culturally informed practices, and effort put into how to really bolster a young woman’s voice, rather than just brainstorming around how to use it to keep funding up. SHE-CAN has been built and bolstered by white women, with a CEO who uses ChatGPT to define intersectionality and uses statistics around women’s leadership from the early 2000s. There is no research to back-up this work, this is a pet project. Without an adaptive and movable model based in genuine cultural understanding and an emphasis on inclusion and consideration, this org will die off as soon as this generation in power starts to pass off their work to the next.