employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Feeding America

Is this your company?

Disconnected/Nonprofit Industrial Complex/Internal Problems - Anonymous employee Feeding America Employee Review

2.0
Mar 9, 2018
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Salary and benefits are extraordinary for a nonprofit. Work/Life Balance is really important to FA. They pay interns. There are some really incredible, smart, capable, driven, conscious people who work at Feeding America. I was so inspired by some of my coworkers and the intentionality they had in the work they do. I learned so much more from lower staff who have such an expertise and view of hunger. Their support of the Feeding America network is satisfactory. They do push resources to them and do a great job in compliance, helping food banks stay reputable, safe organizations. Some of the food banks are doing really incredibly innovative things that is way ahead of the national office. There are some rockstars in the network who have such a pulse on what it takes to end hunger.

Cons

I have 6. 1. It's unsettling that when Diana Aviv left, Feeding America released communications misleading the public on why she left. Their communications team only cares about two things: preserving the FA brand and raising money. Just look at all the videos they're producing. They're purposely pulling on heartstrings to raise money and exploiting people's stories rather than seeing people experiencing hunger as leaders and change agents. It causes distrust and I hope people hold them accountable for it. 2. FA is constantly in strategic planning mode. The amount of time and money wasted on never developing an actual strategic plan is baffling. 3. HR protects middle management employees who treat lower level staff poorly. They allow Executive Team favorites to directly hire friends as contractors, let managers threaten employees to the point of breakdowns, and have different sets of rules than the rest of the office. It causes mission drift and an unhealthy workplace. 4. There's a heavy disconnect between FA, the network and the people they serve. They promote volunteer opportunities, but a lot of employees work at FA because they enjoy the charity work and it makes them feel good. There's only a rare group of folks who can speak to the effects of hunger through a social equity lens. 5. The general culture is unhealthy. Annual reviews and promotions are based on opinion (HR will state that someone's not long enough in their career for a promotion or that it was too soon since their last promotion even if an employee is doing outstanding work). The communications team refuses to promote people and recently saw an exodus of extremely capable staff because of it. There's no management training. There's a culture of leadership taking notes on staff and reporting to managers rather than providing direct feedback. Previous reviews about letting higher management collect big paychecks is true. 6. FA does not make a large enough effort to work directly with people experiencing hunger to drive its mission. There were coffee talks with Diana Aviv, occasional videos shown of stories of people experiencing hunger, and a panel or two at a conference - but FA doesn't work with people or make more of an effort to include folks. Just look at the board. It's mainly older white men. When I was leaving, their initiative on ending hunger was offensive. They'd rather spend tons of money investing in teaching families better financial management skills than putting money into systemic and societal causes for hunger. Another example is how much they're praising their food waste work. It's wonderful, but what kind of message is that sending to people who are hungry, that FA would rather focus their efforts on a supply chain issue that helps the bottom line of food companies than making sure people experiencing hunger don't need that food?

Explore other reviews about Feeding America

5.0
Jan 20, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great place to work, people are nice, everyone believes in the mission, balanced workload

Cons

Very large organization so things move kind of slowly

1.0
Mar 23, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good pay and great mission.

Cons

Feeding America has a powerful external reputation. Internally, it is one of the most dysfunctional and demoralizing workplaces I’ve encountered, and people considering roles here should take that seriously. The culture is deeply clique-driven and often mirrors a “mean girl” dynamic where influence is based on relationships, favoritism, and narrative control rather than expertise or results. Entire teams operate more like gatekeepers than functional owners, inserting themselves to control messaging while avoiding accountability for execution. If you are not aligned with the right internal players, your work will be ignored, undermined, or repackaged without credit. More concerning is that incompetence is not just tolerated, it is often protected. At the same time, competence is frequently punished. People who are effective, direct, and solutions-oriented are seen as threats to the status quo. Instead of being empowered, they are burdened with additional work, excluded from key decisions, or sidelined for not engaging in internal politics. Over time, this creates a system where the path of least resistance is to do the minimum, defer responsibility, and manage perceptions rather than deliver results. This is not a place that develops talent. It is a place where careers stall. High performers either burn out from carrying dysfunctional systems or leave after realizing that growth and recognition are not tied to impact. Those who stay long-term are often the ones who have adapted to or benefit from the internal dynamics. Operationally, the organization is highly reactive and lacks discipline. Roles and decision rights are unclear, leading to constant duplication, confusion, and last-minute fire drills. Teams regularly offload core responsibilities onto others, then reappear late in the process to critique or control outputs. Cross-functional work is slow, politicized, and rarely leads to strong outcomes. Leadership messaging about alignment, strategy, and impact does not match reality. Decisions are frequently driven by optics and external positioning rather than feasibility or input from those responsible for execution. Staff are brought in too late to influence direction, and priorities shift without warning, making effective planning nearly impossible. Communication is inconsistent and often selective. Important context is withheld, expectations change midstream, and teams are left to navigate ambiguity that could easily be addressed with basic transparency. This reinforces silos and mistrust across the organization.

4
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All