Paying Candidates for Interviews Is an Equity Practice Worth Taking Seriously
A recent post by Vu Le at Nonprofit AF highlights a hiring practice that deserves much more attention: compensating candidates for the time they spend in later-stage interviews, especially when organizations require presentations, assignments, or multiple rounds. Le’s post gathers real examples from nonprofits already doing this, which makes the idea feel less hypothetical and more like a genuine shift in how the sector thinks about hiring. It builds on his earlier argument that interview-stage applicants should be paid for the labor, preparation, and disruption that hiring processes routinely demand.
Why does this matter? Because interviewing is not free. Candidates may need to take time off work, arrange child care, pay for transportation, prepare materials, and spend hours getting ready for conversations or work samples, all before they know whether an offer is even possible. As Le argues, the people conducting the hiring are compensated for their time, while candidates are often expected to absorb those costs on their own. That imbalance can be especially hard on people already navigating economic strain, geographic distance, or other barriers to participation. For rural candidates in particular, who may face long drives and limited child care options, these costs add up quickly.
We know this from our own experience. We recently interviewed for a contract with a state agency, a process that was difficult from start to finish. We should have trusted our gut: we knew something was off the moment we received the 90-minute interview invite with no preparation materials, no questions shared in advance, and no clarity about what the agency was looking for. We went through with it anyway, and partway through, we realized the contract was not the right fit and withdrew our application. We walked away with nothing to show for the hours we had invested. In hindsight, the 90-minute unstructured interview was itself a signal: an organization that does not respect candidates’ time during the selection process is telling you something about how it operates. And that dynamic is not limited to employee hiring. It applies with equal force when organizations solicit proposals, conduct vendor interviews, or ask consultants to present in competitive selection processes.
There is also a strong practical case for treating candidate experience as part of organizational culture. The 2024 Greenhouse Candidate Experience Report found that one in five candidates rejected a job offer because of a poor interview experience. CareerPlug’s 2024 Candidate Experience Report reported that 52% of job seekers declined an offer because of a poor experience during the hiring process. When organizations treat candidates poorly, the damage extends beyond a single hire. It shapes how your organization is perceived across the networks your candidates carry with them, and in close-knit rural and nonprofit communities, that reputation travels fast.
Photo by Jose Fabula on Unsplash
This Is Already Happening
One of the most useful parts of the conversation Le has catalyzed is that it shows there is no single formula. The range of approaches is broad, and that breadth should be encouraging. Organizations do not need a perfect model before they begin.
Publicly documented examples:
FoodShare Toronto (Toronto, ON) states on its careers page that interviewees are paid $75 per interview, and if candidates are asked to prepare a presentation or assignment, they are compensated at the hourly rate for the position based on the expected time required. FoodShare also sends interview questions in advance.
PEPS, a family support nonprofit in Seattle, WA, states in its job descriptions that candidates who complete both rounds of interviews receive a $75 stipend check, framed as a way to make the process accessible and less burdensome.
Alliance for Girls (Oakland, CA) notes in current job postings that candidates who participate in an interview receive a $75 stipend, with up to two interviews in the process.
Creative Evolutions, a national consulting firm that facilitates executive searches for nonprofits, has been compensating all search candidates for over three years. Their published policy recommends paying candidates at least twice the hourly rate of the position for their interview time. In current searches, they compensate semifinalists $400 and finalists an additional $1,000, plus travel and lodging.
Reported in the field (via Le’s March 2026 roundup at Nonprofit AF):
Alabama Arise, a statewide policy coalition serving low-income Alabamians, was reported to pay candidates for interviews, with staff describing it as both the right thing to do and a practical investment in relationships across an interconnected nonprofit community.
Grow Food Northampton, a community food justice organization in Northampton, MA, was reported to pay candidates for their time during second-round interviews.
DreamRider (Vancouver, BC) paid interviewees $100 as an honorarium for time spent on small assignments that were part of the hiring process.
Movement Voter Project (Northampton, MA) paid a candidate $100 for an interview.
Alimentando al Pueblo (Burien, WA) paid $250 for a second interview that required a presentation.
Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Ottawa, ON) paid $30 for any interview while operating on a budget of roughly $500,000, demonstrating that even smaller organizations can make this work.
The Center for Community Organizations (Montréal, QC) introduced $100 interview payments along with stipends for childcare or transportation when needed.
Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice (Boston, MA) compensates all finalists.
What stands out in this list is the diversity of organizational size, geography, and mission. These are food justice organizations, policy advocacy coalitions, immigrant services providers, family support nonprofits, and arts organizations. Several operate on modest budgets. The common thread is a decision to stop treating candidate time as costless.
Getting Started
For nonprofits wondering where to begin, a few approaches seem especially workable:
Start with second-round and finalist interviews. This is where the time commitment escalates and where compensation signals the most respect.
Pay candidates for any required work sample, presentation, or assignment. If you are asking someone to produce something for you, that is labor.
State the amount clearly in advance so expectations are transparent from the outset.
Build it into the hiring budget at the start of the search, rather than treating it as an afterthought or a discretionary add-on.
For organizations trying to determine a fair amount, the MIT Living Wage Calculator is a useful benchmark because it provides localized estimates of what it takes to meet basic needs. Creative Evolutions recommends a floor of twice the hourly rate of the position for each hour of expected candidate time, a formula that scales up or down with the salary level.
The Bigger Picture
Paying candidates will not fix a poorly designed hiring process on its own. Organizations also need to keep interview rounds reasonable, communicate clearly, avoid unnecessary delays, and make sure any exercise is actually relevant and time-bounded.
Community-Centric Fundraising points to related equitable practices, including paying community members who serve on hiring committees and, when possible, sharing interview questions in advance so candidates have a fairer chance to prepare. Those are not cosmetic changes. They are part of building a hiring process that is more thoughtful, more accessible, and more aligned with the values many nonprofits claim to hold.
At Rural Pathways, we work alongside organizations that serve communities where good jobs are scarce, distances are long, and trust is earned slowly. In those settings, how you treat people during the hiring process matters as much as what you put in the job description. Paying candidates will not be feasible in the same way for every organization, every time. But even raising the question changes the conversation. It pushes hiring away from extraction and toward respect, and for the communities we serve, that shift is long overdue.
