Contribution — Grace Miller

I want to learn whether a small, bounded program can help a clearly defined group of laid-off mid-career workers make progress they value, without promising jobs or making my constant availability the service.

• The intended participants and honest non-fit are clear, and the group offers a distinct benefit over relevant alternatives for the people it serves.
• Participants choose the progress that matters to them, can show whether it changed, and mixed outcomes, withdrawal, nonresponse, and harm remain visible.
• A second facilitator can lead safely from the materials rather than relying on my personal network or rescue work.
• My contribution stays within $6,000, eight hours a week, and protected family time.

I’m a 44-year-old product leader in Denver. Since January 2025 I’ve informally helped 17 former colleagues after layoffs, mostly people from product and technology. I can facilitate and connect people, but I do not know whether my help transfers beyond my network, whether a group is the right format, or what happened for people who stopped replying.

By May 2027, I want to determine whether one small, bounded group program can create meaningful participant-defined progress for a clearly specified group of laid-off mid-career workers. If the first pilot shows enough benefit, acceptable burden, safe delivery, and transfer beyond me, I may run one further cohort to test a specific uncertainty. I do not need to create a nonprofit, promise employment, serve everyone, or keep the program alive for this Path to count as Contribution.

• The intended participant, recurring problem, and honest non-fit are clear enough that a prospective participant can decide whether the group is relevant without being sold an outcome.
• Each participant chooses one or two observable forms of progress they can influence within six weeks; job offers are recorded separately rather than promised as the program’s result.
• Reporting shows actual counts for eligibility, enrollment, attendance, end review, evidence of progress, follow-up, withdrawal, referral, reported burden or harm, and nonresponse without treating missing people as successes or failures.
• Participants can use private goals, a chosen partner, or optional group sharing; consent to participate remains separate from permission to use a story.
• A second facilitator leads at least four sessions with real responsibility, and the process remains safe and useful without my personal introductions or continuous intervention.
• All work—including recruitment, preparation, messages, referrals, evaluation, facilitator support, and decompression—stays within eight hours a week, $6,000 total, Sunday, and two protected family evenings.
• A second cohort happens only if the first produces a clear reason to continue and no serious unresolved safety, privacy, consent, competence, or sustainability concern.

I’m a 44-year-old product leader in Denver working a four-day week. I live with my spouse and two teenage children. Since January 2025, I have informally helped 17 former colleagues navigate layoffs, rebuild work stories, choose directions, and prepare conversations. Twelve of those people came from product or technology roles. I have positive messages and several visible successes, but no consistent starting measure, follow-up, or account of people who stopped responding.

I bring facilitation, synthesis, program design, and a strong professional network. A local workforce nonprofit has expressed interest but made no funding or delivery commitment. I can reliably protect six hours a week and sometimes two more. I can contribute up to $6,000 without taking from household reserves.

I am prone to making myself available when someone is struggling. That care can hide the true cost of the program and make me the bottleneck. I am not a therapist, benefits adviser, immigration lawyer, or crisis service. The program must have a practical referral list, collect only necessary information, and make non-fit dignified. I will not use a participant’s story without separate revocable permission, use placement statistics to imply causation, or exchange family time and health for the appearance of impact.

I will complete at least 20 discovery conversations—including people outside my immediate product and technology network and people who declined or disengaged—before building a curriculum. If one narrow fit statement and one clear non-fit statement emerge, I will co-design the minimum safe six-week pilot, run it once, and evaluate participant-defined change, burden, nonresponse, facilitator transfer, and my total labor. Only then will I choose among repeating, narrowing, partnering, publishing a toolkit, pausing, or stopping. A second cohort must earn its place by answering one specific remaining uncertainty; it is not promised in advance.