Income Before: $18,000. After: $85,000. Does Tiny Nonprofit Hold a Key to the Middle Class?

Pursuit, as described provides a substantial and successful model for focused technical education over ten months and on-the-job support for three years. Many letter writers have mentioned a similar program, Resilient Coders, which provides a two and a half month technical education, followed by internship and job placement. Pursuit and Resilient Coders appear to have two different models regarding the length of their educational components and the financial arrangements with their students. I would be interested in reading about their respective sources of operating income, the skill levels resulting from their different educational time frames, and the income levels achieved by all graduates in the years following participation. Both seem to be doing great work and could be models for private work development programs, as well as public training programs. We need to know what works under what circumstances to be able to build on and sustain their innovative approaches.

At one time, I worked with teens who were in lock up for months, awaiting their trials. One teacher couldn't get these kids to fill in a circle dot for the tests he gave every day. The next teacher had them talking statistics and waving their hands in excitement that they be the one to get to answer her questions. I came to the conclusion that poor, black kids were a lot more capable than we give them the chance to be. Programs like this give people another way to get the training/ education they need to get their foot in the door. Because the intent here is to improve the production of these people and therefore also improve their finances, I think it is important to have many models to test and compete with each other. It may be that their diverse methods may in itself be an advantage as diversity is often, the answer. I also find it significant that this program is about half female.

Now that Amazon has decided to put all it's money on Northern Virginia, couldn't these guys open a location in SE Washington DC? There are just as many tech jobs available here and they could probably get grants from the city to start a program here.

This sounds a-lot like a bootcamp i recently graduated from, with the difference that not only do you get to keep 100% of your hard earned money, they pay you during the program. i started in September 2018, graduated in December 2018, and now I'm currently employed at Wayfair

I'm surprised so many folks are against this non-profit for having them do a repayment after they find jobs. If they waited to get enough donations so they could expand this program those people would not have gotten the training at all. I think this is a very innovative approach to find a way to grow quickly and be able to help these folks faster. Three years is a short time compared to how long most people have to pay off student loans and your wages can grow rapidly after you get that first job! They will probably be making 50% more in the next ten years! PS my workplace takes on a lot of interns through Year Up (which was also mentioned in the article) and we hire many of them after their internships because they come in really prepared to work hard and succeed! I love that more non profits are having success in this space. It is heart warming!

Like many other commenters I am surprised that a non-profit would ask for students to re-pay a portion of their salary. The tech industry, as a whole, has a pipeline problem and a diversity problem. I would rather see a non-profit asking for money from hiring organizations to continue creating a pipeline of skilled potential employees. After all, skilled employees is why the tech industry is making a profit in the first place. And its something that the tech industry itself, by and large, has refused to do. Second, I am surprised that Pursuit would support Amazon in NYC. Amazon is not exactly known as a good place to work. It has a very low retention rate for their software developers. I would be very sad to introduce brand new software developers into an environment like that, lest they think the rest of the industry is like that. Because it absolutely is not. There are much better places to work. Shouldn't we rather be looking to these new graduates to create whole new markets and opportunities based on the diversity they bring to the table? Clearly technology is not serving, or underserving a massive number of people. I'd much rather see the small/medium size business impact of these graduates, than see them hired up by FAANG companies.

I went to a bootcamp myself called Resilient Coders targeting a similar demographic. Luckily for me though I was able to receive pay from the bootcamp while attending and left with nothing to pay back. Nonetheless it's great to hear people in other places are targeting individuals like myself and attempting to propel them into the tech industry.

I'm a graduate of a 12-week bootcamp program myself and I've had the privilege of volunteering at Pursuit for 3 years. I feel deeply that Pursuit has its heart in the right place and is making a huge difference in many of its fellows lives. One big differentiator is that Pursuit is a 10-month full-time program. Those extra 7 months of learning and skills development make a huge difference in how prepared graduates are to succeed as software engineers. And they do succeed. I know many fellows who are working at top companies in positions that I aspire to. My contribution as a volunteer was ultimately very small, but seeing the great accomplishments of fellows I helped has made it one of the most rewarding experiences in my life.

I support Pursuit's mission to grant access to tech education to all, but am seriously questioning the reasons behind making students repay the organization. I was given a free education while also being provided a stipend so I could survive throughout the bootcamp; encouraged to focus on my studies and not worry about making money while learning. I was taught my contribution to the future of tech was not in the money I could repay, but by the change I could make in the world around me. I, like many of the graduates of Resilient Coders who work for Boston's top tech companies, pay back by making time to mentor new students of the program. I want to respond to commenter Eileen, who stated, "...do not assume that people who receive services or enroll in a program are forever recipients, they are assets in their community who are paying-it-forward." I am not a forever recipient. I am a graduate of Resilient Coders who pays her community back everyday, whose worth is not tied to the dollar amount I can contribute, but by the endless knowledge production and dissemination I provide everyday for future coders. I contribute to the organization of Resilient Coders by living out its mission to create true meritocracy in tech.

It's clear that people like Max Rosado are intelligent, disciplined, and motivated. Why did public education fail them? For that matter, why did private education fail them? Rosado's two-year degree from a community college apparently did nothing for him, as he had to rely on homeless shelters to house his family. Why didn't his high school help him aim higher? Why didn't he get a full ride to a four year college, public or private? Why do we let talented, even gifted, people like this fall through the cracks? I can't help but think of this article in the context of the Varsity Blues scandal. The contrast between someone like Mr. Rosado and those dim youths whose parents paved their paths with gold is sickening.

I run a small national not-for-profit and I agree with this model for several reasons. First and foremost, having program successful (employed at a higher wage) alumni make payments to offset the cost of the training and program supports they received, makes the program sustainable as foundations money moves to other orgs. Donors invest in a project for a limited time – often 3-5 years but there must be a sustainability plan in place or their investment will not have a lasting impact. Additionally, I am sure 97% of their alumni want to give back so others have the same opportunity they. And please, do not assume that people who receive services or enroll in a program are forever recipients, they are assets in their community who are paying-it-forward.

.@Sam Lawton, you beat me to it. Anyone interested in what Pursuit's doing should check out Boston's extraordinary organization, Resilient Coders (http://www.resilientcoders.org/). They have a different strategy, which includes paying their students while they learn. It's a challenging program, and their students and their outcomes are very impressive.

At some point we'll have to decide whether or not equitable access to quality education like this (and yes, like Resilient Coders in Boston) is a civil right. And when seen in the context of civil rights, the idea of asking people to pay for it at all just breaks down. I do celebrate efforts like this. But I celebrate them as a step towards a future in which education is treated as a true civil right.

This is definitely a neat strategy, but there are programs out there that are doing even more along these same lines. I'd look into Resilient Coders in Boston, which also works to expand tech training in communities that would otherwise not have access to it, but allows them to keep their hard-earned money AND pays them while they're at it. The Resilient model recognizes the reality of the economics of education in a way that Pursuit seems to be missing; free programs are excellent, but paying folks so that they can sustain their lives while seeking their goals of working in the tech industry is even better.

My Hsu and Mr Yang are to be commended for this innovative program. Balancing training in tech with soft skills is important. The 3 year bond payment is a terrific idea. Would like to see a version in Chicago as well as in rural areas.

-"If graduates make more than $60,000 a year, they agree to pay 12 percent of their income to the investors for three years." -"and the average salary of the repaying graduates is more than $85,000. " What is the average salary of ALL graduates not just the graduates that make more thank 60k per year. This sentence is misleading: "They earn $85,000 a year on average, compared with $18,000 before the Pursuit program."

This sounds just like resilient coders in Boston, however resilient let's their students keep 100% of money earned. Matter of fact, they ask of nothing in return aside from effort in which every student that has graduated that program has provided. Nice try, but they got some catching up to do to reach the revolutionary status that David Delmar and the rest of resilient coders provides.

This sounds just like Resilient Coders in Boston, except that they let their students keep 100% of their hard earned money AND they pay there students a stipend. It's great to see movements to bring diversity to tech but there are better models out there to provide access to lower income students.

Interesting concept. Certainly the "bonds" strategy is a great means for gaining revenue but how much does that push the boundaries of remaining a non-profit. Ethically, taking individuals who have historically been disenfranchised in their access to capital then having them pay back loans seems unnecessary. An organization in Boston by the name of Resilient Coders allows for program participants to keep 100% of the software engineering salaries that they make following the program. Participants are also paid a stipend to help ease the burden of the hours devoted to training hard technical skills as well as employability skills night and day. Going from $18,000 to $85,000, individuals probably have a lot to take care of (family, food, housing, debts, etc.) so adding another debt to their books strikes me as irresponsible. I would love to see Pursuit push the boundaries and pursue other models that don't involve taxing their participants after the program ends.

Really great to read this. Fascinating program. Seems like a model worth reproducing/scaling up. Thank you.

What do we do with the 90% who aren’t accepted into this program?

It's certainly great to see people trying to innovate on diversity in the tech workspace. I would like to challenge Pursuit to do a little better. Resilient Coders, in Boston, is having tremendous success in placing their participants, who receive a stipend while they are participating in the program and are not burdened with a debt to the program when they've finished. Pursuit is trying to do something important, but they can do better!

What I like in addition to all points in the comments below is that they have 50% women in this program. Women tend to persevere, put in long hours for a better future as they are usually focused on providing for their families, better opportunities for their children. That is a strong incentive to stay on task through the long program.

If you want to do this kind of work, you need mental horsepower. If you have that, you can learn enough to get a good job. I worked in info tech at a large bank. About 10-15% of the population is smart enough to become some sort of low-level tech worker, provided you're willing to work long hours and are willing to do thankless tasks in tough conditions. However, if you want to be a Java programmer, or an Oracle DBA, or maintain Unix shell scripts, then only about 5-7% of the population qualifies. It's very competitive, and the top guys are very smart indeed. Within this limited group, I worked with people who had a very wide range of abilities. Some of them got quite frustrated with their own limitations, and as the technology got more difficult, many of them were no longer able to do the work. But for those who can, and are willing to put in the hours, the pay is pretty good for a non-managerial job. We had plenty of guys making $90-150K, and that was five years ago.

Finally, someone gets it! Not just job training but job mentorship for three years; not just hard skills but also soft skills. This is a well-rounded, well-grounded program that gets real results. Kudos!

Kudos to Mr. Hsu and Mr. Yang. This startup sounds like a game changer for the lucky participants.

NOW we're getting somewhere. Practical applications, TARGETED applicants: "Pursuit, by design, seeks people with the “highest need” and potential, but it is selective, accepting only 10 percent of its applicants. Its outreach relies heavily on presentations at public housing buildings and libraries, and word-of-mouth referrals." Feel-good is out, real-world is in. Finally!