This post is not about an individual. It’s about business. But before we talk business, I need to talk about one individual. For that, I am sorry.
Yesterday, a colleague alerted me to an announcement on LinkedIn, the professional networking site. Misty Gillis, an experienced forensic genetic genealogist with more than 50 investigative leads to her credit, is leaving her part-time job at Parabon after little more than two years.
Due to the unfortunate convergence of a beverage and my laptop, I was on my phone at the time, so I posted a screenshot to my Facebook page with just one word: “Interesting.”
Because it was. But not as interesting as it was about to get!
Within minutes, the comments became a dogpile of people new to my page yet agitated over a short note about a big change at one of the top forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) companies in the world.
Misty’s LinkedIn post had piqued my interest for a few reasons, none of which seemed connected at the time. But why on Earth were people so fraught? The social media reaction was wild, so, of course, I locked in. Now, I know the threads are connected.
Parabon in Decline?
First, over the past several months, I’ve done a deep dive into the Forensic Genetic Genealogy Project by Dr. Tracey Dowdeswell at Douglas College, British Columbia, Canada. Dr. Dowdeswell compiles data on every publicly announced case resolved using FGG.1
I’d created this plot showing cumulative identifications by the top five FGG organizations. Obviously, the first takeaway is that Othram (blue line) dominates the field, raising concerns of an unhealthy monopoly.
The other is that Parabon’s rate of resolving cases (red line) has declined drastically, from 55 announced in 2019 to only ten in the last 12 months of data. As a result, I wasn’t surprised that they were downsizing their staff.
Turmoil at DNA Doe Project
Second, I had overlooked some major changes at the DNA Doe Project (DDP) until recently. Their top management has turned over twice in less than a year.
In August 2025, DDP had three executive directors, each with a different role and title. All three left in September, along with the Director of Lab Logistics.2 In October, the DDP website was updated to show founder Margaret Press as sole executive director, with three new directors in roles the prior team had held. All four have since been replaced by yet another team.
Curious.
The Story Lines Converge
This is where it gets really interesting. The three executive directors who left DDP in September 2025 started a new nonprofit called Compass IGG and Advocacy two months later. It’s mission is largely the same as DDP’s. Today, one day after she posted that she is leaving Parabon, Compass announced that Misty is joining them.
Making a nonprofit financially viable can take three to five years. For example, DDP didn’t pay a regular salary to any of its staff until 2022, its fifth year.3 As a startup nonprofit, Compass probably has a very small budget, making this a risky move for anyone leaving a big name like Parabon. Unless, of course, the long-term prospects at Parabon are dim.
The key takeaway is that FGG is a tough business. As of December 2025, Othram is credited with more than a third of all FGG identifications. Their growth trajectory is phenomenal. Meanwhile, some of their biggest competitors may be struggling. Top professionals are changing horses midstream. And there’s no shortage of aspiring genealogists who are willing to do this work for free.
Whatever happens next will be … interesting.
1 Not every investigative lead is announced to the public, so these numbers are almost certainly an undercount.
2 According to their LinkedIn profiles.
3 See DDP’s financial history here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/823435932
As you say Interesting
Yes, interesting indeed. I wonder what’s going on at Parabon and the other companies?
I suspect they’re all struggling to compete with Othram, and that Othram is actively creating a monopoly.
I agree. The question I have is, are they (Othram) better than the others? I wonder about differences in technologies that might all be useful/helpful.
Good question. The best way to answer that would be to send the same sample to multiple labs to see who created the best data file in the shortest amount of time.
Thanks for the mention, Leah! I respectfully request you update your article to correct the name of our organization. We are Compass IGG & Advocacy. Why does this matter? Because it’s the Advocacy piece that distinguishes us from other organizations doing IGG in this field. By supporting families of the long-term missing with advocacy services, we are working the problem of unidentified missing persons from both sides of the equation.
Done! My apologies for the oversight and best of luck growing the organization.
It was very interesting to see the comments. I have watched a genealogy podcast mentioned on you-tube a couple of times. His company would not have been my choice when I began my search for birth family in 1985. It was rumored that one could pay $500.00 to a professional searcher to find your biological family. I decided to do what I could using the DNA Angel network. I have no regrets because I learned valuable life lessons along the way.
I admire the work that professional genealogists do, especially to bring closure to people with deceased love ones. As with many other professions, I am sure there are many imposters. We have had a few in our area posing as physicians and physical therapists.
What I find interesting is that you didn’t actually need to utilize Misty Gillis’s name outside from hoping for clicks. You could have just stated, “I saw that a fairly well known FGG left Parabon and joined Compass, which I find curious in relation to these trends I’ve been studying.”
That aside, I actually don’t think this is interesting at all. Yes, we know Othram dominates the industry, but the idea that “something is up with Parabon” does not hold any foundation based on your chart. A cumulative trend chart is a misleading story.
Finally, on your comment relating to sending a sample to each company and see who compiles the best data file in the shortest amount of time holds a simple answer: the company with a full-time team of salaried workers with resources (access to DNA databases, for example, of which many Othram bought out fairly recently). Speaking of which, when I look at your chart, is about the same time Othram started skyrocketing. Perhaps a look into how the buyout has affected other FGGs organizations?
All of which has nothing to do with Misty, meaning very simply you could have easily rendered this article without her name.
If I decide I need a managing editor, I’ll let you know!
It has been interesting to see the reactions to your Facebook posts. They seem to serve as a Rorschach test for those deeply entrenched in IGG as an unimpeachable good; it’s a convenient place to project. Thanks for continuing to track the field and the industry.
You’re welcome. I look forward to the day when FGG is practiced professionally and with integrity.