Typical non-profit - Anonymous employee Merakey Employee Review

2.0
Dec 26, 2016
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Cheap health benefits, easy to get hired.

Cons

The benefits are Highmark, so if you're in the Pittsburgh area they are pretty much useless because of the UPMC monopoly. If you have a pulse and are above the mental cognition of the clients, they will hire you. I had a job that required me to go from group home to group home and I honestly had trouble at times telling who the clients were and who the support staff were. The Pittsburgh area is also kind of a mess, because it used to be a different company called AVS before NHS bought it. I did not work there at the time, but everyone left from the AVS days is kind of stuck there because their much better time off benefits and pay are grandfathered in, and they would lose money working elsewhere. Frankly if I had an intellectually disabled relative I would not let them stay in a NHS facility. The whole thing is an incompetently run house of cards, and I feel like the upper management know that; it's all about stuffing their pockets with as much money as possible before a major investigation shuts the whole thing down.

Explore other reviews about Merakey

5.0
Apr 30, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great Company and I love individuals we serve

Cons

More exposure in job fairs and hiring events. getting our company name out there with more social media advertising

1.0
Dec 16, 2025
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The mission of the organization is meaningful, and hiring managers genuinely value quality candidates and strong placements. The work can be rewarding when the focus is on making thoughtful hires that truly support vulnerable individuals. Team members care deeply about doing the right thing and producing strong, long-term results.

Cons

Under new management, recruiting has shifted to a numbers-driven model where metrics far outweigh quality, outcomes, and human impact. Recruiters are now responsible for interviewing and decision-making while simultaneously being held to significantly higher, rigid goals that do not account for location based candidate flow or program differences. Time is spent submitting phone screens and documenting nonviable candidates purely to satisfy metrics instead of actively sourcing strong applicants. Being discouraged from cherry-picking candidates, despite hiring for roles supporting vulnerable populations is concerning and demoralizing. This approach reduces efficiency, negatively impacts candidate experience, and has contributed to burnout and low morale. The system feels misaligned with the mission and set up for failure.

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