I accepted another role and withdrew — in part because this was one of the most unprofessional and inconsiderate application processes I’ve experienced. It’s especially concerning because, as a humanitarian organization, they should operate with respect and integrity, which they did not. *** - After three rounds of interviews and multiple follow-up emails, I was completely ghosted. *** - For the screening interview, the recruiter canceled two consecutive times at the last minute, without any explanation, apology, or acknowledgment of how this affected me. This was despite his knowing that I’m leading a life-saving humanitarian project for children in another country, with the meetings scheduled late at night (9:30 p.m. my time). *** - While my follow-up emails were ignored for weeks, I was asked to schedule interviews on short notice. *** - The recruiter also stated that the hiring process would take about three weeks, but that turned into two months without any clarity or updates. *** - Much of the Donor Impact & Proposal Writer job description posted on LinkedIn was blatantly written by ChatGPT. For a professional writing role, this is deeply concerning — it demonstrates a lack of respect for skilled human writers, originality, and authentic communication. It also raises serious doubts about how much CI truly values the craft of storytelling and the integrity of its donor communications. *** - Lastly, I have ethical concerns about CI’s child sponsorship model, which is widely recognized within the humanitarian and development community as exploitative and outdated. This fundraising practice commodifies children for donor marketing and fosters unequal, paternalistic relationships that undermine dignity and transparency. It also perpetuates outdated racial and colonial stereotypes that frame children in the Global South as helpless subjects of Western charity rather than as empowered individuals within their own communities. Other organizations, such as Save the Children, have already ended and moved away from similar sponsorship models for these very same reasons. *** - Children International’s child sponsorship page on its website is especially exploitative and dishonest. It is presented like an online shopping site for children, and creates a false sense of urgency around individual children — for example, showing messages such as “Waiting 212 days” right below children’s photos. What goes on the internet stays there forever, and most of these children don’t have the capacity to understand the long-term ramifications of having their identities, photos, and personal circumstances publicly displayed. Many may experience shame or emotional distress later in life because of this approach. *** In combination, these experiences show that CI’s practices — both in its treatment of candidates during the hiring process and public fundraising practices — are not aligned with the values of empathy and professionalism that a humanitarian or development organization should uphold.