Nonprofits that require candidates to complete unpaid work as part of the interview process are actively harming the sector. This practice is exploitative, short-sighted, and ultimately self-serving.
Let’s be clear: when a nonprofit demands work from candidates without compensation, it is theft. Yes, theft. Candidates’ time, expertise, and intellectual property have value. If an organization truly respects the talent it seeks to attract, it should compensate candidates for their efforts—or, at the very least, rely on existing work samples. You know, like every other ethical employer does.
Some nonprofits justify this by claiming their situation is unique and that they must thoroughly evaluate a candidate’s capabilities, critical thinking, and domain expertise. But let’s be honest—every organization thinks it’s a special snowflake. And yet, countless companies—both nonprofit and for-profit—manage to assess candidates just fine without demanding free labor. Reviewing past work, engaging in substantive discussions, and conducting reference checks are all effective ways to gauge a candidate’s abilities. If an organization can’t determine fit without requiring free work, the flaw isn’t in the candidate—it’s in the hiring process.
Beyond being unethical, this practice creates inequity. The candidates who can afford to complete unpaid work are often those with more privilege—individuals who are financially stable, have fewer time constraints or are already well-established in their careers. Meanwhile, talented professionals who lack these advantages—who may be juggling multiple job applications, working full-time, or supporting a family—are effectively excluded from the process. So, in reality, nonprofits aren’t necessarily attracting the best candidates, just the ones who can afford to participate in this bizarre unpaid internship masquerading as an interview.
This unethical practice has become so normalized that some nonprofits don’t even bother hiding it. In one egregious case, an organization informed a rejected candidate that they would still use the work they had submitted. Imagine that—someone didn’t get the job, but their work was deemed valuable enough to implement. At least they were honest about the theft. Most just take the work and pretend it never happened.
Even worse, many candidates pour time and effort into these assignments only to be ghosted—no feedback, no response, just silence. Then, they either see their ideas in the nonprofit’s work or find the same job reposted as if their candidacy was never seriously considered. It’s like a bad date that steals your Netflix password and then blocks your number.
How about an alternative? Nonprofits should respect candidates’ time by accepting past work samples or, if original work is vital, paying candidates for their effort. Better yet, thoughtful interviews should be conducted that evaluate skills and alignment through meaningful conversation rather than arbitrary assignments.
Requiring candidates to produce theoretical plans detached from real-world context does not predict success. It does not measure critical thinking, sector knowledge, or mission alignment. These exercises are often more about checking bureaucratic boxes than finding the right fit. They serve the nonprofit’s immediate interests—not the sector’s long-term health.
And that’s the real cost. When nonprofits engage in these exploitative hiring practices, they drive away talented, passionate professionals who might otherwise dedicate their careers to the sector. Instead, these individuals take their skills elsewhere—to ethical employers who respect their time and expertise. Over time, this talent drain weakens the entire nonprofit ecosystem, making it harder for organizations to fulfill their missions effectively. If nonprofits want to remain strong, innovative, and impactful, they must stop demanding unpaid labor, respect candidates, and build a hiring process that values people—not just their work product.