Black Girls Code was founded in April 2011 in San Francisco by Kimberly Bryant, a biomedical engineer who had observed her daughter's interest in gaming and technology and found no community or educational space that felt designed for her. The organisation that Bryant built in the following decade grew from a single city programme to a presence in more than a dozen US cities and several international locations, delivering technology workshops for girls between the ages of seven and seventeen, with a specific focus on Black and other girls of colour.
In the autumn of 2021, roughly a decade in, it is worth taking a careful analytical look at what Black Girls Code has built and what the evidence says about whether it is working. This is not a celebratory piece; it is the kind of critical-but-fair assessment that the organisation deserves from an analytical audience that cares about the same goals it does.
What Black Girls Code Built: The Organisational Record
The organisational growth was substantial by any measure for an independently funded non-profit in the educational technology space. From a single San Francisco programme in 2011, Black Girls Code had grown to approximately fifteen US chapters, including major cities across the country, plus programming in South Africa and the United Kingdom. Cumulative attendance had reached tens of thousands of girls across its programming. The organisation had developed curriculum across a range of technology topics — game design, mobile app development, web development, robotics — and had built partnerships with technology companies including Google, Microsoft, and others that provided both funding and mentors.
Kimberly Bryant's leadership of the organisation throughout its first decade was visible and consistent. She was one of the most widely recognised figures in the girls-in-computing space, invited to speak at policy forums, awarded honorary degrees, and listed in various technology leadership compilations. The organisation's public profile was substantially connected to her identity and reputation.
The Curriculum Model: What It Does and Doesn't Promise
Black Girls Code's programming was primarily workshop-based: one-day, weekend, and week-long intensive programmes rather than sustained semester-length courses. The workshop model had specific advantages — it was accessible, required no sustained commitment that might deter participation, and could be delivered in partnership with community organisations that had existing relationships with families. It could reach girls who would not enter a traditional structured educational programme.
The workshop model also had inherent limitations on depth. A one-day game design workshop was an introduction to a concept, not a curriculum that built sustained technical skill. The research on what produces girls' persistence in computing was consistent on this point: single exposure events, however well-designed, were less effective at changing long-term educational trajectories than sustained engagement over time. The organisations with the strongest evidence for effects on girls' CS persistence — Girls Who Code's multi-week summer immersions, school-based sustained programmes — were ones that provided more intensive, longer-term engagement.
Black Girls Code had, over the decade, developed some sustained programming beyond its single-day workshops — week-long summer camps, multi-session after-school programmes — that addressed this limitation. Whether these sustained programmes were reaching the same population as the broader workshop series, or a self-selected more motivated subset, was not clearly established in the organisation's published materials.
The Evidence Question: Do BGC Participants Persist?
The most important question about any girls-in-STEM programme is whether its participants go on to pursue CS education and careers at higher rates than comparable girls who did not participate. This is a difficult question to answer well — it requires longitudinal tracking of participants and a credible comparison group, both of which are resource-intensive — and neither Black Girls Code nor its peer organisations had, as of 2021, published peer-reviewed impact evaluations with these characteristics.
What Black Girls Code had published was self-report data from participants immediately following programmes: rates of increased interest in technology, changed self-perception of belonging in tech, and stated intentions to pursue CS in school. These outcomes were genuine and meaningful — changes in self-perception and interest were important precursors of behavioural change — but they were not evidence that behaviour actually changed in the months and years following participation. The gap between "I found this interesting and feel like I could do it" (measured immediately post-programme) and "I enrolled in AP Computer Science two years later and persisted through to a CS degree" was large, and filling it required the kind of follow-up data collection that the organisation had not published.
This was not a criticism unique to Black Girls Code. It was a sector-wide limitation: very few girls-in-STEM organisations had the resources or institutional will to conduct the longitudinal outcome studies that would answer the persistence question rigorously. It was a gap in the evidence base that was consequential for funders and policymakers trying to allocate limited resources among different intervention models.
The Intersectionality Dimension
Black Girls Code's specific focus on Black and Latina girls was its defining characteristic — the thing that differentiated it from gender-focused programmes that were primarily serving white and Asian girls. The evidence on intersectional barriers to computing participation was strong enough that this focus was analytically well-grounded: Black and Latina girls faced barriers to computing persistence that were distinct from those facing white and Asian girls, and interventions designed for the generic "girls in STEM" population did not necessarily address them.
The research on this was consistent: Black and Latina girls were less likely to have been exposed to computing in schools, more likely to attend schools with inadequate CS teaching resources, less likely to have family members in technology careers who provided informal exposure and encouragement, and more likely to experience the combination of racial and gender stereotyping that made computing environments feel hostile. Black Girls Code's community model — building a space where the default demographic was Black and Latina girls, where the mentors looked like the participants, and where the activity was framed as exciting rather than remedial — was a direct response to this research.
The International Dimension and Future Scope
Black Girls Code's programming in South Africa and the United Kingdom placed it in an international context that the organisation had navigated with some caution — its model, deeply rooted in the specific experience of Black American girls, required adaptation to South African and British contexts where the racial dynamics of technology education were different. The South Africa chapter in particular was operating in a context where the relevant barriers to Black girls' computing access included post-apartheid educational infrastructure inequalities that the BGC model, designed for US urban contexts, was not built to address.
How the organisation developed its international presence over the next decade would be one of the more interesting questions for those following the girls-in-CS space internationally.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Black Girls Code?
Black Girls Code is a non-profit organisation founded in April 2011 by Kimberly Bryant that delivers technology education workshops and programmes for girls aged 7-17, with a specific focus on Black and Latina girls. It had grown to approximately 15 US chapters and international programmes by 2021.
Does research show that Black Girls Code improves girls' CS persistence?
As of 2021, rigorous longitudinal outcome data on BGC participants' CS persistence was not publicly available from the organisation. Post-programme self-report data showed positive changes in interest and self-perception. Whether these translated to sustained CS engagement in the years following participation had not been established through published longitudinal research.
What distinguishes Black Girls Code from other girls-in-STEM programmes?
Its specific focus on Black and Latina girls, based on a clear-eyed analysis that intersectional barriers require intersectionally designed responses. Its community model creates environments where Black and Latina girls are the default demographic, not the exception, which addresses the belonging dimension of CS persistence that research identifies as consequential.
← Girls Who Code Launches | ← Code.org: Five Years | IWD 2022: STEM Gender Gap in 10 Charts →