progressive nonprofit recruiting organization

Work for Progress

A recruiting and job-board organization connecting applicants to nonprofit advocacy jobs in the Public Interest Network ecosystem. It scores very low because its product is a pipeline into demanding political advocacy work, with little evidence that recruits gain binding control over the organizations using their labor.

Why this matters: Work for Progress is a labor-pipeline entry: it matters because recruitment is part of the power relation, not just an HR detail.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Parent / owner: The Public Interest Network Last reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for Progress lists Public Interest Network organizations as hiring groups on its job board.

Final Score 4* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE4 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material18

Bonus+0

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap18

Penalties-14

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Owned by The Public Interest Network

The parent profile is currently rated D (Extractive, 28*). This subsidiary is not mechanically capped at the parent score, but parent control is part of the ownership, governance, policy, accountability opacity, reversibility, and harm analysis.

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Scale Integrity, with the largest penalty coming from Policy Capture.

Strengths

Scale Integrity3/5
Ownership2/10
Governance2/10

Penalties

Policy Capture-3
Youth Capture-3
Identity Capture-3
Accountability Opacity-2

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims15
Direct axis claims15
Coverage15/15

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	2 / 10	Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. On Ownership, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	2 / 10	Work for Progress's linked public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. Work for Progress's linked public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. On Governance, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	2 / 10	Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. On Extraction, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	1 / 7	Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. On Labor Sovereignty, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	2 / 7	Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	2 / 7	Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	2 / 5	Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. On Market Conduct, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	2 / 5	Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. On Product Integrity, Work for Progress belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	3 / 5	Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. On Scale Integrity, Work for Progress sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-1	Work for Progress's labor record includes public allegations or concerns around discharge, retaliation, or high-pressure advocacy work that can harm economically vulnerable staff. Work for Progress's labor record includes public allegations or concerns around discharge, retaliation, or high-pressure advocacy work that can harm economically vulnerable staff. This creates a Human Harm penalty because labor-rights allegations in a mission-driven workplace are especially serious: the organization asks workers to accept hardship for public values while still controlling their livelihood. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Work for Progress's labor record includes public allegations or concerns around discharge, retaliation, or high-pressure advocacy work that can harm economically vulnerable staff. [10]
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-3	Work for Progress's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. Work for Progress's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. This creates a Policy Capture penalty because even public-interest lobbying is an attempt by a private institution to bend public rules. The penalty is heaviest for electoral and campaign machinery, lighter where the work mainly checks stronger private power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Work for Progress's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. [11]
Youth Capture ? Manipulative youth-directed marketing, youth-data or attention monetization, collectible/add-on traps, parasocial or identity capture, surprise mechanics, or treating young people as lower-disclosure consumers. Making useful toys or welcoming children is not itself penalized. Range: -5 to 0.	-3	Work for Progress's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Work for Progress's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern. [12]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Work for Progress's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Work for Progress's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent. [13]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-3	Work for Progress's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Work for Progress's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals. [14]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Work for Progress's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. Work for Progress's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. This creates a Ideological Disavowal penalty because the problem is not having progressive politics; the problem is presenting contested ideology as neutral public interest or simple decency while exercising institutional power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Work for Progress's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. [15]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 79/100

15 verified linked claims 15 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 15/15 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

15 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

15 direct claims across 15 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

15/15 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Work for Progress's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

2Work for Progress's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities.

Governance Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

3Work for Progress's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

4Work for Progress's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for Progress job boardGeneral web source · 58%

5Work for Progress's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

6Work for Progress's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

7Work for Progress's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for Progress job boardGeneral web source · 58%

8Work for Progress's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

9Work for Progress's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for Progress job boardGeneral web source · 58%

10Work for Progress's labor record includes public allegations or concerns around discharge, retaliation, or high-pressure advocacy work that can harm economically vulnerable staff.

Human Harm Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for Progress job boardGeneral web source · 58%

11Work for Progress's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

12Work for Progress's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern.

Youth Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

13Work for Progress's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for Progress job boardGeneral web source · 58%

14Work for Progress's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

15Work for Progress's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Work for ProgressGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

AGOOD56 Ventures microenterprise and small-business support nonprofit · Washington, Pacific Northwest

Competitors

DEXTRACTIVE26 Gusto private payroll, benefits, and HR platform for small businesses · same market DEXTRACTIVE12 ADP public payroll, HR, tax, and workforce-services company · same market DEXTRACTIVE11 Green Corps environmental organizer training organization · same market DEXTRACTIVE7 UKG private HR, payroll, and workforce-management software company · same market DEXTRACTIVE6 Workday public human-capital-management and finance software company · same market FMALIGNANT-2 Checkr private employment background-screening platform · same market FMALIGNANT-2 First Advantage / Sterling public employment background-screening and identity-verification company · same market FMALIGNANT-2 HireRight private-equity-owned employment background-screening company · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Work for Progress Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log