By Amos Schonfield, founder and CEO of Our Second Home, a youth movement for people with refugee backgrounds. He is also chair of Screen Share UK.
If there is a cast-iron rule of the charity sector in 2026, it is that any conversation about recruitment must mention how difficult recruitment is right now. The symptoms include financial pressures resulting in not enough jobs for the candidate pool, post-pandemic changes to how people work, and the rise of large language AI models making it far faster to submit a passable job application or get a helping hand in interviews. The diagnosis, however, remains the same: that something seems to have broken.
In the charity I lead, Our Second Home, and in other roles, I have recruited for 13 roles in a little over 2 years. Some of these have had too few applicants for my liking. Others, particular entry roles, have had far too many. In total, I reckon I have read a total of 550 applications. So, while I can’t offer remedies to the funding landscape meaning too many charities are trying to recruit from too few fundraisers, I believe that there are ways the sector can change tired tactics for today’s recruitment realities.
Nudging the candidate pool
It is understandable that most candidates will follow the path of least resistance when applying for a role. Due to fundraising constraints, there simply aren’t the jobs to go around and many are having to apply for hundreds of jobs in order to land one (Source and Source).
Thankfully, it has never been easier to apply for a role: anyone can train an AI tool on your CV, upload a job description, and copy and paste the resulting cover letter. The letter will read as professional, perhaps better than what a candidate feels they could produce themselves. However, as a recruiter, I have now read every phrase and frame that ChatGPT can spew out about my charity. Lines that might ‘pop’ to a candidate will fall flat to me. I feel I can see through every generic claim to experience or expertise without evidence. What I am now looking for is authentic connection to the role, to the cause, and to the tasks.
I would argue that it is neither sensible or desirable to rule out AI use from candidates, but the best way to iron out this problem is to lay it out. What I place on every job description is the following, here for your use:
“We recognise that applicants may choose to use AI tools (such as ChatGPT or Grammarly) to support the preparation of their applications. We welcome the use of tools that help you express your experience more clearly or confidently. However, we believe that the strongest applications also include personal insight, genuine motivation, and a clear connection to Our Second Home’s mission. These are things no tool can replicate.”
Another area where candidates can be encouraged to think differently is to think about how they might stand out. In a candidate pool of 220 prospective administrators (true story), what may distinguish one person from another are the other skills they may bring. By this, I don’t mean for us to scour the ‘hobbies’ section some include, but rather to encourage CVs and cover letters to include other relevant skills to the organisation.
Adapting recruitment for new realities
Much like candidates must change their approach to the task of job hunting, we as hirers should be thinking about refreshing tired practices. At every stage, there are shortcuts that present themselves, but should be only used carefully.
One temptation will be to subcontract shortlisting a large group of candidates through AI. This, privacy concerns aside, may create a dystopian reality in which recruitment simply become a discussion between two large language models; wherein candidates are rewarded for serving up AI-friendly applications rather than humane connection. I have included a disclaimer in job descriptions that we may use AI tools to help with shortlisting, but I am still firmly avoiding its use. Where shortlisting may take longer due to the volume of applications, I aim to be as transparent as possible with candidates over email.
When it comes to the interview stage, I also think charities can do more to level the playing field. For instance, we share our interview questions in advance. This came from a specific reason – that Our Second Home is a refugee organisation, and we don’t want to penalise non-native English speakers – but there is a general lesson that can be applied to all. Most jobs don’t require fact recall under pressure in English, but rather reflective thinking. The kind of thinking that takes preparation. Indeed, it is true that some candidates train an AI to listen to online interviews, further rewarding the canny over the considered. We inform all candidates that we do not want them to read from a script and encourage interview panels to offer follow-up questions, finding that this provides enough spontaneity to check amorphous things like ‘fit’.
Where we seek to test competency through timed tasks, we also acknowledge that per hour payment may be required. We will soon be offering to cover expenses for interviewees, including to cover childcare. These costs will likely be small to a charity and are both in line with values we often espouse and will generate a large amount of good will.
No silver bullet
Recruitment will continue to be challenging and will never be foolproof. None of this fixes the structural issues facing the sector. It won’t conjure new funding, shrink candidate pools, or remove uncertainty.
However, by replacing outdated barriers with measures that build transparency and trust, it is still possible to improve the quality of both applications and appointments. This takes effort. But in a tough market for charities, a willingness to rethink habits that no longer serve us is a muscle we all need to exercise.