Helen Brown Group

By

Inconvenient Truths about Single Family Offices

By: Kenny Tavares, Senior Consultant

Kenneth Tavares

Kenny Tavares

Single family offices (SFOs) have become increasingly important in managing the wealth of ultra-high-net-worth families. These entities are designed to centralize financial, administrative, and governance functions, ensuring that family wealth is preserved and strategically deployed across generations. The rise in interest surrounding SFOs is not coincidental – it reflects broader trends in wealth accumulation, generational transitions, and the increasing complexity of managing substantial assets.

By some estimates, there are between 10,000 and 20,000 family offices globally, and this number continues to grow. This expansion is fueled by factors such as wealth transfer, succession planning, and the need for bespoke financial solutions that traditional institutions often cannot provide.

As a prospect researcher, it is always helpful to find evidence of a family office, but what does it really tell us about a prospect’s wealth? What type of family office do they have? What type of services do they offer? If you are like me, you have heard many estimates about the amount of wealth needed to start an office; Are these statistics telling us the real story? An examination of data in J.P. Morgan Private Bank’s 2024 Global Family Office Report tells us a more complex story. Here are a few interesting facts to consider when developing a wealth estimate.

The average assets under supervision at a single family office (SFO) in the United States in $767 million and the average net worth of those families is $1.4 billion, but…

The median assets under management in the US is $476 million and the median net worth of those families is $626 million according to J.P. Morgan. Additionally, 38% of US-based SFOs surveyed were founded by families with net worth of $500 million or less; 25% of them were managing assets of $250 million or less. Knowing that a little more than half of SFOs have assets less than $500 million. This is corroborated by Citi Wealth’s 2025 Global Family Office Report, which states that 47% of North America’s SFOs have assets of $500 million or less. While trends continue to point toward larger SFOs, there are still a significant number of smaller operations.

The average operating cost for a SFO in the U.S is $3.4 million, but…

The median operating cost is $1.4 million according to J.P. Morgan. 33% of these offices had costs of less than $1 million, including 59% of offices with assets between $50 million and $500 million. These expenses cover salaries, technology, compliance, and outsourced services. The difference between the mean and median are probably due to the following factors:

The average number of employees for a SFO in the U.S. is 11.4, but…

The median employee count is 2.8. 53% of SFOs have five or fewer employees; 71% gave 10 or fewer employees, including 90% of offices with assets between $50 million and $500 million. Additionally, J.P. Morgan reports only 7% of US SFOs employ six or more executives; 79% employ 3 or less executives. Furthermore, Bank of America’s 2024 Family Office Study indicates that 60% of SFOs report that their founding assets originated from a family business and half of those share employees with the family business. Many of these SFOs are relying on services to accomplish their goals.

The large majority of SFO offer financial asset management; professional services such as accounting and taxes, legal services and estate planning; administration services; insurance management; family governance and succession planning; and philanthropic services, but…

According to J.P. Morgan, 37% of U.S.-based SFOs outsource investment management services to third-party providers. 50% or more of the family offices that offer the following services rely on external providers instead of building capabilities in-house: legal services; accounting and taxes; trading and market execution; estate planning; investment banking; services and cybersecurity services; and matrimonial and family planning. 93% of SFOs plan to maintain or increase their reliance on outsourcing services to expand their services and manage expenses.

This behavior, which resembles that of outsourced family offices or hybrid offices, demonstrates the difficulty in defining family offices. Often, researchers lack the information needed to assume how these organizations function.

So, what does the existence of a family office tell us about a prospect’s wealth?

The numbers above show us that without additional information, we can only make general assumptions about family offices and that, at a minimum, the existence of a family office confirms the following:

  • The prospect is likely a high net worth individual (investable assets of $30 million or more).
  • The prospect experienced a business sale or liquidity event that needed to be managed in the family’s interest. A record of this event can tell us more about the family office’s assets.
  • Any indication that the prospect has a SFO could increase estimated assets to a baseline of $100 million.
  • While difficult to determine, any indicator as to the number of employees or executives at the single family office could go far in determining the size and wealth of the organization.
  • Keep in mind that a single family office is not likely to hold all of a family’s assets.

A single family offices’ existence signals significant financial strength, but understanding their scale and structure requires additional context. As wealth management becomes increasingly complex, SFOs will continue to evolve, balancing in-house expertise with outsourced services to meet the demands of governance, investment, and legacy planning. Recognizing these dynamics is essential for accurately assessing their role and implications in today’s philanthropic landscape.

By

The Art (and Regulation) of Property Values

By: Amy Caldarelli, Consultant

Amy Caldarelli

Amy Caldarelli

Today I’m going to do a deep dive with you all on something I never anticipated caring or knowing anything about but that has become a throughline of my entire adult professional life: property values. (When I told my husband I’d be writing a blog post for work, he said, “Is it going to be about property values?” I nodded excitedly, and he said, “Of course it is.”)

Indulge me for a minute while I explain how I ended up here. When I graduated with a master’s degree in 20th-century art and politics in 2009, the first job I got was working for a regional galleries association. The next job I got was at a property tax law firm. In my mind, the first one would end up being formative in the direction of my career. To my surprise, it was the second one that did. Do I know a lot about art as a wealth indicator because of my time studying art? No; what I can tell you about art mostly has to do with its cultural relevance and mechanism for dissidence as well as community and identity formation, particularly during times of social and political upheaval. Do I know a lot about real estate as a wealth indicator based on my time preparing case evidence for property tax appeals? Well, yes. I do.

This is why I’d like to dig into a couple questions that our president and CEO, Melissa Bank Stepno, posed in her post last year, “The Real Estate Quagmire,” and tantalizingly suggested could each produce its own blog post. Just as she focused on two questions in that post, I’ll focus on another pair here—two of the most basic we can ask:

  • How are you determining the “value” of the property, and which “value” are you using?
  • Where is the property located geographically?

I want to state right up front: I’m not going to explore either of these topics comprehensively, and I’m not going to tell you which property value you should use. What I am going to do is review some of the basics of property value types and how the location of a property can affect which value of a property makes the most sense to use.

Assessed vs. Market Value

For the purposes of a prospect researcher, at least, there are two main categories of property values to consider: (1) the assessed value that a local township or county assessor determines to calculate real estate/property taxes, and (2) the market value that a property could be expected to—or maybe even recently did—sell for on open market (fair market value).

The latter can be found in all kinds of sources: Zillow’s Zestimate is perhaps best known (or notorious, depending on your perspective.) Redfin, Trulia, and Cotality (formerly CoreLogic, and which is a data source for vendor tools like iWave and WealthEngine), to name a few, have their own proprietary algorithms to determine up-to-date fair market value estimates for real estate.

Assessed values are both a little more, and a little less, straightforward. Any given parcel of real estate has only one assessed value. This type of property value isn’t an estimate that depends on which data source you’re using, but a verifiable number that typically changes, at most, once a year. What’s less straightforward is… well, pretty much everything else.

Assessed Values: Terminology and Multipliers

First, there’s the issue of the term “assessed value.” In many jurisdictions, what appears on a tax bill and in public records as the “assessed value” represents only a literal fraction of what the local assessor has determined a property’s fair market value to be. Take Cook County, Illinois, for example, where residential properties are assessed at 10% of what the local assessor calculates a home’s market value to be:

In this case, the local assessor and the tax bill would say the property’s “assessed value” is $194,416, but the “assessed value” a prospect researcher would be interested in is the one the county/township assessor and tax bill are calling a “market value”: $1,944,160.

Moreover, once you know about this assessment-as-a-fraction-of-market-value business, there’s the issue of what that fraction/percentage is, exactly. Staying in Cook County, remember I said residential properties are assessed at 10% of the local assessor’s market value determination? Well, so are vacant land parcels, but commercial and industrial properties are assessed at 25% of market value, and not-for-profit properties are assessed at 20%. And is that the same for the rest of Illinois? [Sigh]… of course not. Outside of Cook County, real estate in Illinois—regardless of use type/class—is assessed at 33.3% of the local county/township assessor’s calculated market value. Looking nationwide, there are enough different multipliers for jurisdictions across the U.S. that there are resources dedicated solely to cataloguing them.

Assessed Values: Policy Factors

California

In some jurisdictions, assessed value may have little to no correlation at all with a property’s current fair market value, or what it would sell for if put on the market today. The most extreme example of this is in California, due to the state’s Proposition 13. Some readers may lean back in their chair, fold their hands together and say, “Well of course, Prop. 13.” For those who don’t: Proposition 13 is a property tax limitation initiative that passed in California in 1978. The California State Board of Equalization explains the initiative and its effects:

Under Proposition 13, properties are reassessed to current market value only upon a change in ownership or completion of new construction (called the base year value). In addition, Proposition 13 generally limits annual increases in the base year value of real property to no more than 2 percent, except when property changes ownership or undergoes new construction.

What this means is that assessed values for California homes can’t go up by more than 2% each year in most circumstances, regardless of how much the home’s market value may have risen over that time. Property owners who purchased their home decades ago “tend to have markedly lower tax liability than recent purchasers,” making recency of purchase a key factor in a California homeowner’s tax bill. It also means that California properties don’t operate on a market value-based property tax system but one that is essentially “acquisition value-based.”

I’ll move on from California in a minute, but it’s worth mentioning one more complexity to California property taxes: “portability” provisions. Under some conditions, California homeowners can transfer the taxable value of a residence, including:

  • When transferring a principal residence between parents and children or between grandparents and grandchildren when both qualifying parents are deceased;
  • In instances where people over the age of 55 or who are severely and permanently disabled replace their primary residence with a newly purchased or constructed home;
  • As a disaster relief measure, allowing transfer of the taxable value of a principal residence substantially damaged or destroyed by wildfire or natural disaster to a replacement residence located anywhere in California.

(These details aren’t necessarily crucial to understanding assessed values, but I’ve certainly come across instances where about these provisions have explained what seemed to be a mystifying difference between the assessed and market values of a prospect’s relatively recently-purchased home.)

… And Beyond California

While California has the strictest one, they are not the only state to have a cap on assessed value increases. I’ll spare an in-depth look here at the particulars of other states’ assessment increase limitations, but will include a map published by MOST Policy Initiative that helpfully illustrates which states do and do not have such a limit:

Assets vs. Lifestyle Indicators

To layer in some timely context, the Tax Foundation points out found that, from 2020-2024, property values in the U.S. rose almost 27% faster than inflation and points out that when property values surge, “property owners may be wealthier on paper due to the appreciation of their property value, [but] their income flows and ability to pay higher taxes may not have risen proportionally.” This is essentially the crux of why both assessed and market values are helpful to know and consider when evaluating a prospect’s capacity: it’s a reminder that, with real estate, a market value can show you a fast-appreciating asset, but a property’s assessed value and tax bill may say more about what’s happening to a cost-of-living expense for its owner.

Property Values Aren’t Universal. They’re Local.

For some properties, neither Zillow’s Zestimate nor the assessed value you find in public records seems to make sense. In particular, I’m thinking about certain multi-unit residential properties like co-ops, especially in New York City. I bring this up to make my final point about how to determine which property value(s) to use: it really, really depends on where the real estate is located. Property location can affect not just what’s happening with its market value and how its assessed value is calculated, but also what kind of data is available and relevant to consider.

Bottom Line

So, what should you look for when determining which value to use? Well, first, to get this out of the way: your own organization’s policy, if they have one. I’m not here to shake up any hard-won consensus your organization has come to, just to help make sense of some of the confusion that can exist around property values. Beyond that, a few of the most important questions to ask yourself if you’re trying to decide which value to use:

  • What’s available for that property?
  • Are there any significant anomalies for that property or area that could affect how local values are determined?
  • Does something about the value look… off?

In the end, I always want to be as accurate as possible but also try to keep in mind I’m not trying to sell this property for the prospect, nor am I sending anyone their tax bill. Within reason, slightly over-/under-estimating a property’s value is not going to make or break its accuracy as a wealth indicator. This is where the art comes back in: the part that isn’t about numbers but about interpretation and context, about recognizing property value as a piece of a larger picture of a prospect’s wealth. That’s also what turns data into insight.

By

Who Wants to Hear a Story?

By: Catherine Cefalu, Consultant

Catherine Cefalu

Catherine Cefalu

Stories are an integral part of our lives: the connections we make with one another, the media we create and consume, and the ways that we grapple with ideas and emotions. True stories, made-up stories, ghost stories (it is Halloween, after all), stories about other people, and stories about ourselves. It’s the last one that I want to focus on today.

Why do stories matter to us in the nonprofit sector?

Robert Payton and Michael Moody, in their book Understanding Philanthropy, talk about something called a philanthropic autobiography: a personal narrative about the ways that giving and volunteering have made a difference in our lives. It helps us dig down into the “why” of philanthropy. (In fact, I highly recommend writing one about yourself as an exercise.)

Why else do stories matter to us? Let’s talk about planned giving.

Most people don’t like talking about planned giving, because it gives us the uncomfortable reminder of our mortality. This aversion is illustrated in a concept called Terror Management Theory: people avoid the topic of death as much as they can, and when they can’t avoid it any longer, they turn to other coping mechanisms to handle it. These coping mechanisms involve seeking out a kind of symbolic immortality, which can be in the form of something referred to as autobiographical heroism. What are the good things we have done in our life that will outlive us when we are gone?

Research by Russell N. James and Michael W. O’Boyle at Texas Tech found that the areas of the brain that activate when talking about charitable bequests are the same areas that activate when visualizing one’s own autobiography. James theorizes that people see their bequest as a kind of “final chapter” to their life’s story.

So where does prospect research come into all this?

Basic research tells us “who”. Good research tells us “how”. Great research tells us “why”.

Think of all the time you spend researching a prospective donor. Some of that work is quantitative—you can’t do a capacity rating on vibes alone—but some of the work is qualitative. That’s where the story comes in. As researchers, we are in a unique position to find the background information that our fellow fundraisers need to build a relationship. We can help answer the question: how does our organization fit into this prospect’s story?

What sort of information can we find?

  • Biographies: professional bios, personal bios, or even interviews about a prospect’s early life and career.
  • Personal Connections: who are the important people in this prospect’s life? Does the prospect come from a background that has a unique culture of philanthropy?
  • Donor Stories: many nonprofits will feature stories about their top donors explaining why they give, in the hopes of inspiring other potential donors. How do they talk about their approach to philanthropy?
  • Mission Statements: if the prospect has a family foundation, what is its stated purpose? Is it multi-generational? Will it live on after the donor is gone?

Although we will never be able to know everything about a prospective donor’s life, prospect researchers fill an important role in uncovering the broad outlines of their story. We are data-driven storytellers.

Now, who wants to hear a ghost story?

 

By

Connect Me!

By: Senior Consultant, Debbi Olley

Debbie Olley

Debbi Olley

It’s a hyperconnected world, we’re told, and you’ve likely used some sort of connecting relationships in your own life. Maybe you’ve played a version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with your friends. Or maybe, when looking for a new job, you’ve engaged in what my late mother (and plenty of others) called “networking.” Thanks to growing up in a household that valued personal introductions and making connections, I also love to connect people whenever I can. (“Oh, you’re going to Rome in a week? You should look up my college professor, who’s working on a book there right now!”)

In prospect development, our version of making connections—relationship mapping—is a topic that comes up often. Here at HBG, our founder, Helen Brown, wrote about it a month before COVID shutdowns hit. Helen’s post remains relevant more than five years later, since we continue to wrestle with these same questions. In the past few weeks alone, I’ve seen plenty of posts on PRSPCT-L about this topic. And so, in the spirit of Helen’s original piece, I’ve talked to my fellow researchers at HBG and have also used my own experience as a springboard. I hope it can be a helpful guide for you, too!

What Are We Hoping to Find?

My colleague Catherine sums this up beautifully below; her guidelines can help when deciding what you want for your own shop.

In general, the things she’s looking for in a good relationship mapping tool:

  • A robust database of names with up-to-date data;
  • Something that will answer the two most common relationship mapping questions:
    • “How can our organization connect to this person?”
    • “Who can this person introduce to our organization?”
  • A way to create lists, definitely for individuals but ideally also for organizations;
  • A user-friendly interface that lets me easily see the details behind each connection (both first and second degree connections);
  • A way to export my findings into something relatively tidy so that I can show the results to clients.

Connections with a Cost

Altrata now owns some of the major connectors researchers have long relied on, including BoardEx, Boardroom Insiders, RelSci, WealthEngine, and Wealth-X. Kaleidoscope will be unveiling a new product soon, Path Explorer. Products such as Kindsight (iWave) also offer connections tabs on its profiles. For confirming family relationships or trying to trace family trees, Ancestry can be a terrific resource. Nexis for Development Professionals will also list relatives, neighbors, and other known associates.

As always, there are caveats with what each product can provide and areas where they may fall short. Best practices in prospect development makes it imperative to test products thoroughly before committing to it for your shop or team.

The Hard Work of Free Results

I’m going to bring in my HBG colleague Viola’s suggestion below to start this section off, since managing expectations is a key part of relationship mapping.

Relationship mapping can be really time consuming. What she often suggests is to handle it in a phased approach:

  • Provide lists of current affiliations [to the client] (boards they’re currently serving on, other people that work for the same current employer).
  • Let them eyeball the list to see if they know anyone.
  • If they don’t, the names can be checked against the organization database to see if they have records.
  • If that still doesn’t produce anyone, provide lists of former affiliations (boards they previously served on, people who were previously on a board with them but have since left the board, previous co-workers).
  • Let them eyeball the list to see if they know anyone.
  • If they don’t, the names can be checked against the organization database to see if they have records.

Viola also shared the following tips:

  • Use the Wayback Machine internet archive (https://archive.org) to see previous versions of a board list.
  • Don’t forget to look in your organization database. Some have a Relationship Tree that you can use to see who’s connected to who. Also, you can use queries to see who they might know (e.g., which other alumni attended during the same timeframe). You can also search for people who live on the same street or work in the same profession.
  • Google the person’s name and site: org to see what organization affiliations they might have. You can also do that with site: edu to find education affiliations.

HBGer Maura uses an approach with one of her clients that is a version of something I’ve used in the past, too. I’ll bet others reading this have done something similar. Essentially, create a running spreadsheet of your organization’s board members/main connectors and add possible connections as you prospect and/or try to make connections between other donors. You can run keyword searches in your master spreadsheet to see if there may be a relationship.

More recently, I used a Frankenstein’s monster combination of free sources, including LinkedIn, Impala, ProPublica, and, as Helen put it in her previous post, “search-string ingenuity,” to find possible connections for a client. As Viola observed, relationship mapping can be time-consuming, but sometimes it really is a matter of digging in all sorts of places to yield a single possible relationship.

Make That Connection: It’s Good for You!

PRSPCT-L is always a fabulous source for tips, tricks, and sometimes simple validation that your fellow researchers often struggle with the same issues. A recent poster indicated a switch back to a more “manual” approach, creating relationship maps for senior leadership to identify. (That sounds a lot like what Viola and Maura recommended above!)

All this talk about relationship mapping should be a good reminder for all of us, both in our workplace and in our “regular” life, of the absolute necessity of creating, fostering, and maintaining strong, lasting relationships. While so many companies have monetized and capitalized upon the idea of making healthy, happy connections, the reality is that many of us continue to struggle with loneliness every single day. It is gratifying to know that my mom, with her long-ago focus on networking and making connections between people, was a bit of an oracle in this particular realm. And so, as we continue to work hard for in our workplaces, let’s also create strong, healthy, and vital relationships for all of us!

 

By

Diamonds (or Rubies) on the Soles of her Shoes

By: Melissa Bank Stepno, President & CEO

Let’s channel Paul Simon for a moment and talk about shoes. That’s probably not the lead-in that you expect from a blog post that’s supposed to be about philanthropy.  But, I promise you it is!

In Simon’s song Diamonds on the Soles of her Shoes, he sings about a woman that is so rich that she literally has diamonds on the soles of her shoes.

Or, if you would prefer, let’s remember Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, who wore what is perhaps the most famous pair of shoes – Ruby Slippers.

Closer to our work, I am reminded frequently of this very old cartoon from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.  I liked it so much that I clipped it out of the printed publication more than a decade ago and I still have it on my desk:

Maybe Mark Litzler, the cartoonist, heard the same real-life story that I heard, told by a salesperson who was on a trip to see a potential client with the CEO of the public company where he worked.  As he tells it, the evening before “the Big Meeting,” the CEO broke one of his shoes and wasn’t traveling with a spare pair.

I get it – stuff happens when you travel.  We’ve all been there.

There’s an HBGer on our team who broke her shoe at the beginning of our annual retreat earlier this year.  She took an “emergency Uber” to the closest DSW to buy herself a pair of new shoes.

I was once walking down the street and had the strap of my sandal snap off.  Conveniently, I had just walked past an independent shoe store.  I immediately turned around, walked into the store, and bought myself a new pair of shoes.

I also realize that the luxury of “just buying a new pair of shoes” is not something that everyone can afford to do.  But, let’s get back to the public company CEO for a moment.

At most organizations, finding a public company insider is a clear path to major gift prospect potential.  At the very least, I would argue that every single Insider could “afford” to buy a new pair of shoes.

So, what did this CEO purchase?  He didn’t.

What he did was reach out to the hotel’s maintenance department and ask for some duct tape, which he used to hold his shoe together.  The next morning, the CEO and the salesperson arrived at “the Big Meeting” with one shoe clearly held together with duct tape.

I was just as surprised as you might be when I first heard this story.  Or, perhaps, you aren’t surprised at all?

My point is that whether a person is wearing last season’s Ferragamo shoes* or has duct tape holding their shoe together, the way people present themselves with or without materialistic luxuries could have very little to do with their philanthropic capacity.

*Side bar: for those of you unfamiliar with Ferragamo shoes, a quick check of their website as I am writing this shows that the least expensive pair of shoes they are currently selling is $565, with the most expensive being $2,900.

In the book The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel, the author lays out 20 principles that he believes are the most important factors related to … well … the psychology of money.  Or, to put it another way, how a person’s psychology, philosophy, background, goals, circumstances and behavior can have a tremendous impact on their financial situation.

One chapter focuses on “Wealth is What You Don’t See” with the subtitle “spending money to show people how much money you have is the fastest way to have less money.”  Now, I’m not suggesting that my colleague and I shouldn’t have bought new shoes when ours broke at an inopportune time.  But, keep in mind that neither one of us bought “emergency” Feragamos either!

Housel uses cars, not shoes, to make his point and shares a story from when he was a valet at a hotel in Los Angeles.  A frequent guest who typically arrived in a Ferrari (major gift prospect?) showed up one day in a Honda.  When asked about it, the guest told Housel that the Ferrari was repossessed after defaulting on a car loan (No, probably not a major gift prospect).

Housel states: “we tend to judge wealth by what we see, because that’s the information we have in front of us.  We can’t see people’s bank accounts or brokerage statements.  So, we rely on outward appearances to gauge financial success.  Cars.  Homes. Instagram photos.”  Maybe even shoes.

Housel isn’t advocating for this approach.  Rather, the chapter is designed to completely rebuke it.  His point is that the people who are the wealthiest are often those that don’t buy the expensive car, or the luxury shoes, or are dripping with diamonds.  The wealthiest are often the most outwardly modest.  And those who are the most “showy” are sometimes the most leveraged with no disposal income or invested assets to spare.

While not a book about philanthropy, Housel proves the point of why more sophisticated prospect research and analysis is needed to estimate what someone’s philanthropic capacity might be.  No, prospect development professionals still can’t see a person’s bank account balance or brokerage statement.  But we certainly have the tools and resources to be more sophisticated than relying on materialistic or outward appearances.

This also reminds us that even with the best prospect research techniques, sometimes a person’s true capacity will elude us.  We’ve all heard stories of the surprise multi-million-dollar bequest that shows up after a person with a seemingly humble background passes away.  The schoolteacher.  The nurse.  The janitor.  The gas station attendant.

For Housel, his example comes from a gentleman by the name of Ronald Read, who was both a gas station attendant and a janitor.  Yet, when he died, his will contained two bequests totaling more than $6 million.  At the time, the bequests were the largest gifts that the Brooks Memorial Library and Brattleboro Memorial Hospital, both in Read’s local VT community, had ever received.

How did Read do it?  He lived frugally and invested very well.  We don’t know if he used duct tape on his shoes but we do know that he held his winter coat together with a safety pin and even at 90+ years old, parked his 14-year old Toyota Yaris further away than he had to just to save the cost of a parking meter.

The moral of these stories is simple: the way people present themselves, with or without materialistic luxuries, could have very little to do with their philanthropic capacity.  As a profession focused on prospect strategy and fundraising intelligence, it serves as serves as a very distinct reminder for us.  While in rare instances some prospects will surprise us with assets that we will never be able to find, more importantly, it demonstrates why the work that we do is so important – our organizations can’t afford (literally) to make capacity assumptions based on solely on a person’s outward appearance.

***

Image Credit 1: Smithsonian Institution, Ruby Slippers, https://www.si.edu/object/ruby-slippers-worn-judy-garland-dorothy-wizard-oz:nmah_670130

Image Credit 2: Mark Litzler, Chronicle of Philanthropy, circa 2014

By

Due Diligence in Prospect Intelligence: The Why and the How

By: Grace Chandonnet, Senior Consultant

Grace Chandonnet

Grace Chandonnet

The Helen Brown Group has been discussing the need for due diligence in prospect intelligence in this space for years, and for better or worse, it is still an important topic – maybe more now than ever. It’s a sobering time for nonprofits for a variety of reasons, and if we can proactively avoid partnering with individuals or organizations that could expose us to risk, it is all for the good. It’s always been important to raise the red flag when we come across something negative when researching someone. Considering our 24-hour news cycle and the rapid spread of information, misinformation, and disinformation through both social and conventional media, I think now more than ever we need to keep our due diligence hats on during the course of our work.

Let’s take a look at the different avenues of due diligence, what to consider, and why they are important (and suggest some great resources!)

Source and Legitimacy of Wealth

It’s great to know that our prospect is wealthy, but it’s also important to know a bit about where their wealth came from. Was it through ethical means (e.g., inheritance, entrepreneurship, investments)? Is there any history of corruption, fraud, environmental harm, or labor abuses? Are their business interests  in controversial industries (e.g., tobacco, weapons, fossil fuels)? Does the company operate in countries with sanctions or embargoes? Does reported wealth and lifestyle match public records (e.g., real estate, SEC filings)?

Reputational Risk

We need to remember that the reputation of those with whom we partner can and will reflect on our organization’s reputation. We should be paying attention to our prospects’ behavior and what is being said about them. Are there any negative press, scandals, lawsuits, or regulatory actions? Could the prospect’s affiliations be seen as controversial or misaligned with your organization’s values? Have they made statements or engaged in behavior that could reflect poorly on your institution?

Legal and Compliance Issues

We also need to consider any potential legal and/or compliance issues. Do they appear on any sanctions and/or watchlists such as Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Sanctions List, Interpol, OpenSanctions, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Sex Offender Public Website, or other sanctions/blacklists? Are there issues with offshore holdings or shell companies – do they or their businesses appear in the Internal Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ (ICIJ) Offshore Leaks Database? Is there any past or ongoing civil/criminal litigation for financial or ethical misconduct, or IRS issues that are public (note: most IRS issues will not be public unless you have access to court records, but federal tax liens on property are public record).

Philanthropic History and Intent

We are going to look at philanthropic history during our research anyway, but we should also do so with our due diligence eyes. Does it feel as though donations have been made for publicity, influence, or tax reasons rather than genuine interest? Has their nonprofit engagement been with organizations that are regarded with respect and not with organizations antithetical to your institution’s mission? Has there been any history of them retracting gifts or not fulfilling pledges?

Politically Exposed Persons

A Politically Exposed Person (PEP) is someone who holds or has held a prominent public position or function, often associated with government, politics, or international organizations. This includes heads of state/government; senior politicians; high-ranking military officers; senior executives of state-owned enterprises; judges, ambassadors, or central bank officials; and/or close associates or immediate family members of any of these. PEPs are not inherently high-risk, but their positions expose them to a higher risk of bribery, corruption, or undue influence, which necessitates enhanced scrutiny.

PEPs matter in our field for several reasons. Donations from a PEP (or associate) may be viewed as an attempt to curry favor, seek influence, or whitewash a public image. Media or public backlash can follow if a donor is later involved in a scandal or criminal investigation. PEPs may have political or ideological stances that conflict with the values of your organization and accepting funds from them could alienate your organization’s existing supporters, staff, or governance. Some PEPs (especially foreign ones) may be listed on sanctions lists or involved in corruption investigations, and donations from sanctioned individuals could trigger serious legal consequences.

You will likely know pretty quickly if the prospect you are researching is a PEP, and if they are, we should hold them to a higher standard of vetting than typical prospects. Use your organization’s protocols for elevated risk prospects. In many nonprofits, this may trigger enhanced due diligence.

When it comes down to it, doing your homework on prospects just makes sense. A little extra digging can save a lot of headaches later and can help ensure that your organization is partnering with people who genuinely support your mission and ethos.

Resource Checklist:

By

Demystifying the Forbes 400 and the Bloomberg Billionaires Index

By: Chelsea Morin, Consultant

Chelsea Morin

Chelsea Morin

Have you ever wondered about the methodologies behind the net worth estimates that some major financial and business publications report? What information do they use to come to these numbers and how accurate can it possibly be? Are the details they use for their estimates publicly available, or are they sitting down with the billionaires they are reporting on to get inside information?

For this post, we will focus on the methodologies of the Forbes 400 and the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, take a look at their differences, and break down how these estimates can inform our work in prospect development.

Let’s start with Forbes

Over at Forbes, they publish a ranked list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, known as the Forbes 400, once a year. It reflects a snapshot of each individual’s wealth on one particular date but also reports real time net worth updates for the wealthiest people in the world.

The first step the Forbes team takes is meeting with billionaires being researched for inclusion on the list or speaking with them virtually or over the phone whenever possible. They will also interview associates including employees, asset managers, and attorneys. Sometimes, they even reach out to rivals and peers to collect more information!

Some billionaires will provide documentation to support their estimated ranking, but others won’t. In either case, documents from a variety of sources including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), court and probate records, news articles, and more are researched to get a fuller view of an individual’s assets. All assets are considered including real estate, art and car collections, yachts and planes, and other unique holdings. Stakes in both public and private companies are considered. For public companies, SEC insider filings help to provide a clearer view of holdings.

What about private companies?

For private companies, Forbes compares estimates of the company’s revenue with price-to-sales, price-to-earnings, or other relevant ratios for similar public companies and then applies a 10% liquidity discount. The liquidity discount accounts for the difficulty an individual might face when trying to sell a private asset quickly for a fair price. In the case of companies backed by venture funding, several factors may affect the estimated value of the company including how shares are being traded on secondary markets, how institutional investors account for their shares in the company, and the overall health of the company’s sector.

So, what’s not included?

Forbes subtracts any known debts from net worth estimates and excludes any funds donated to charitable foundations or donor-advised funds. Family fortunes dispersed amongst many family members are generally not included either. In these cases, the wealth belonging to the living founder of a fortune and their immediate family will be listed with the addition of “& family.” Occasionally, wealth held by an immediate family member of an heir will be included if relevant.

How Bloomberg Differs

The Bloomberg Billionaires Index tracks the world’s 500 richest people and updates daily after New York markets close and public company stakes are valued using the latest closing price.

Private company valuations rely on peer comparisons based on industry and size, using price-to-earnings or EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value divided by Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization). If direct debt figures aren’t available, peer net debt-to-EBITDA ratios are used instead. Values adjust daily with peer or index movement. Most private firms get a 5% liquidity discount; a country risk discount is added when assets are concentrated in riskier markets, based on S&P sovereign ratings.

Hedge funds are valued using average market cap-to-AUM (assets under management) ratios of similar public funds. Personal capital mixed with outside money isn’t counted. AUM is pulled from SEC Form ADV filings, and returns are considered if reported. A 25% “key man” discount applies when performance depends on one person.

Realized dividends and proceeds from share sales are also included. Taxes are deducted at the highest rate for the person’s country unless evidence supports a lower one.

Although assets may often be transferred to a billionaire’s family members, it is the position of Bloomberg News that this does not change who controls the fortune. As a result, Bloomberg credits family fortunes to the founders or head family members who have the most direct control over the assets. In cases where the stakes of individual adult family members can be verified and those family members are actively involved in the family business, the value of the stake is credited to the individual.

All billionaires or their representatives can respond to questions about the net worth calculation, including the balance of their assets and liabilities.

What’s not included in the Bloomberg Billionaires Index calculations?

For one, the ownership of closely held assets is not included if it cannot be verified. Additionally, if a billionaire has pledged shares held in a public company as collateral, the value of those shares is not included in their estimated net worth. Fee income for hedge fund businesses is not included because it cannot be verified across the board. And finally, no assumptions are made about personal debt.

A confidence rating between one and five stars is also given to each profile. A one-star rating is used when an individual’s fortune is primarily made up of closely held assets and several assumptions are required to calculate metrics such as company ownership and personal assets. A five-star rating means that most of the individual’s fortune is composed of publicly traded assets or can otherwise be verified through reliable sources, including the billionaire themselves or their representatives.

How to calculate an estimated net worth without the help of a billionaire…

What do you do when you can’t reach out to a billionaire or their representatives to confirm assets? Or when you don’t have the staff to do as much thorough research as a major publication such as Forbes or Bloomberg? Here at the Helen Brown Group if a net worth from one of these reputable publications isn’t available, we generally rely on the total amount of visible assets an individual holds to determine what their giving capacity may be.

What is the difference between estimated net worth and total visible assets? Simply put, an individual’s net worth is the value of all their assets minus all their liabilities. A helpful tool we sometimes use to determine an estimated net worth for high-net-worth individuals is a calculation from the Capgemini/Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report which provides evidence that real estate comprises approximately 19% of their total assets. Forbes or Bloomberg may get close to estimating an accurate net worth for some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, but it’s not very practical, or really even possible, to do this in our daily work. Often, it is not feasible to know exactly what an individual’s private assets, debts, or other liabilities might be.

Instead, let’s just consider total visible assets when calculating a giving capacity. In other words, what is the total of an individual’s assets that we can determine based on public records and searches? This will include real estate holdings and the stockholdings and compensation of public company insiders. When looking at assets for the purpose of charitable giving, it can also include assets held by a foundation if it is solely controlled by the individual. If you’d like, you can try to estimate someone’s compensation based on what information is available about compensation for similar roles or in similar industries. You can also attempt to estimate what an individual’s privately held company might be worth by comparing it to similar public companies or past sales of private companies. Sometimes, you may even get lucky and find information about someone’s private art collection, boats, or planes that they own!

Once you have gathered all the public asset information available, a common calculation to determine giving capacity is to use 5% of visible assets. Always remember though, that this capacity can be adjusted based on factors such as previous giving history.

It was insightful to learn more about what factors are (and aren’t) included in Forbes’ and Bloomberg’s calculations and compare them to my own work. I hope this information is useful for you and your organization as well!

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2024/10/01/2024-forbes-400-methodology-how-we-crunch-the-numbers/

https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/methodology/

By

Meet the parents

Although the holiday season is a little way off (wait, no, Thanksgiving is only three weeks away!!) it’s never too early for those of you in academic institutions to start thinking about Early Decision/Early Admission students and the parents that come with them. In April, parent research kicks off in earnest in every academic prospect research department, and having a plan (and a budget) now will be something your future self will thank you for. This week’s article by my colleague, Mandi Matz, captures lots to think about – and prepare for – in your parent research.  ~Helen

Mandi Matz

     Mandi Matz

With the holidays on the horizon and many of us thinking about our families near and far, I thought it might be a nice time to talk about parents. Specifically ideas for researching them if you work at a school, college or university or other organization where parents are or could be donors.

I’ve spent several years of my career working at and with educational institutions where parents are a key, and often untapped – or certainly untapped to their full potential – constituency.  Although researching parents can be overwhelming and time consuming, it also can be one of the most valuable projects you complete for your institution.

Here are some tips and tricks for researching parents that I’ve learned along the way. Obviously, many of them apply to prospect research in general.  But if you’re responsible for researching parents at your organization, I hope they will be helpful to you specifically.

Wealth screening

The way you conduct your parent research will depend on the time and resources you have available. If you’re a solo researcher in a small shop, a wealth screening from an outside vendor may be the perfect solution as it can give you a quick way to determine the parents at the top of your pool. There is no lack of vendors to choose from – Kindsight, Donorspace, Donorsearch and ResearchPoint to name a few.  While I’m not advocating for any of these products in particular, you may already have access to at least one of them, so use what’s at your disposal.

As a corollary, do your best to understand the screening product you’re using so that you can verify the results most effectively and efficiently, which is especially critical if you have limited time. Recently, we at HBG met with a representative from one of the products we use to have a refresher course on some of its features. Although I’ve used this product nearly every day of my professional life for years, it was eye opening to me how much I learned from the session. It was a good reminder that resources have features you may not be using, and they are always coming out with enhancements. If you don’t have time for a meeting with a product representative, many resources have online tutorials and trainings about their latest and greatest features. Fully understanding your screening tool can also help you understand the results and interpret them for your gift officers.

If you use an outside vendor to screen your parents and you don’t have a lot of – or any – time to verify the results, don’t worry. You’re giving your gift officers new prospects, which likely makes them happy, and anything you can provide is better than nothing. Your colleagues can always ask for more research later if they need it. In many cases, you just need to give them enough to get them started. Most vendors will provide a summary of the screening that may be fine to start with if you’re short on time. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Before I worked with the Helen Brown Group, I managed the research department at a small liberal arts college. Our main project every year was to screen the parents of the incoming class, which we began in earnest in May and finished in July.  I had one researcher dedicated to this project full time, and they did the research manually.  In this scenario, we provided medium-depth research into the new parents’ education, career, real estate, giving to other organizations (especially educational institutions), affiliations and wealth indicators.

Planning, planning, planning

While this project made for a busy time for my team during the long, hot summer, one of the most important things I learned from it is the importance of planning. I recommend that to the extent you can, work with the stakeholders involved in the project – including your Admissions office, your vice president and your gift officers – to map out the project as much as you can before it begins.

Of course, your ability to do this will depend, again, on the time and resources you have available, as well as your organizational culture. But if you can take the initiative and plan ahead, it can make an overwhelming project a little less so. At the liberal arts college, I made a point to arrange a meeting with Admissions soon after the winter break to discuss the timelines for the project, when my team could anticipate getting data and what that data would look like. Those timelines didn’t always hold, but having an open line of communication and a general plan was always helpful.

After I met with Admissions, I arranged a meeting with my vice president, gift officers and our events department to discuss their timeline and expectations and how the results my team found would be used. The college hosted an annual parent dinner that coincided with new students moving in.  Thus, the point of the project was to determine which parents should be invited to that event. Knowing from our events team when invitations needed to be mailed helped us determine our ultimate deadline.

But parent research need not revolve around an event. At your institution, the point of the project may be just to get parents assigned into portfolios so that your gift officers can begin trying to engage them.  Either way, this information is important to know so you can adjust the project’s timelines and deliverables accordingly.

Researching – and advising – with strategy

Not every parent will be unknown to you as you may find some who have a second or even third child coming to your institution. In that case, don’t forget to look in your database, where you may find valuable information – including information that can help you provide context and, sometimes, a reality check – about certain parents.

 

For example, at the liberal arts college we had a father who was a member of a famous band.  The band was long broken up, but this parent was still on the radar.  With a second student coming to our institution, interest in him was renewed. In our research, we made sure to include that although he certainly was a top parent in terms of wealth and capacity, he was not someone we recommended spending time pursuing. He had never given, never responded to any outreach and never attended any events. Remember, your gift officers and other colleagues rely on you not just for information, but also for the analysis and expertise you can provide.

Finally, think about the big picture.  Whether you screened your parents through a vendor or manually, did you notice any trends or patterns in the results?

  • Are the families from particular states or geographic areas? If so – and your institution is such that your gift officers are assigned to certain regions – should that regional alignment be re-evaluated?
  • Is there a commonality in the parents’ careers? If so, is there a further screening you can do based on occupations or companies where your parents work?
  • Who are the parents whom, while they may not be major gift prospects, could be ideal for your annual fund?
  • Based on the results of your screening, are there other segments of your constituency that you want to examine further? For one client I worked with at HBG, the result of their new parent screening led them to then do additional screenings of legacy families and grandparents. Those constituencies were later targeted with specific mailings that resulted in some new and nice gifts.

When I worked at the liberal arts college, the new parent project, although it was a lot of work for my team and me, was my favorite project of the year. I always thought of it as Christmas in July because at the end of the project, we were giving our gift officers the “gift” of new prospects. What could be better as prospect researchers? Let the holiday season begin!

By

Crafting a Meaningful Donor Profile: Connect with the Donor Behind the Dollars

by: Susan Barclay, Consultant

Susan Barclay

Profiles are the bread and butter of the prospect research world. We write them day in and day out. But, have you ever thought about what makes a good profile go from good to, well, great?

Say you’re like my colleague Karla Davis and you’ve been asked to research someone like This Guy. Your fundraiser has already had the initial visit with This Guy and is anxious to learn more, counting the moments until your profile is in their hands (or inbox). A good profile includes all the usual information, but what else can make it great?

A great prospect profile goes beyond the numbers; it delves into the prospect’s interests and values and presents a picture of the donor behind the dollars. It answers questions.

Let’s take a look at those different categories, shall we?

 

What’s in a Name?

First things first: always include the essential details. This includes the donor’s name, contact info, and affiliations.

But don’t stop there!

Make it a point to understand who they are beyond these basics:

  • What’s their background?
  • Who are their family members?
  • What led them to philanthropy?
  • What compels them to give?

By grounding your profile in personal details, you set the stage for a deeper connection.

Hint: Two of my favorite sources are LinkedIn (be sure to follow your organization’s social media policy) and Lexis Nexis for Development Professionals.

 

Uncover Their Philanthropic Interests

Let’s dig into what truly drives your donor. Research their giving history to spot patterns—this is where you can find insights that aren’t just about the size of their gifts but also about their values and priorities.

  • What causes are they passionate about?
  • Do you see a consistent history of giving to particular organizations, or are they one-time givers?
  • What are their most significant gifts?
  • Do you see any endowments, major gifts, multi-year gifts, or scholarships?
  • Are they involved with any organizations as a member of a board or as a trustee?
  • Do they serve as a volunteer in other capacities?
  • Do they support those organizations?
  • Have you run across any articles mentioning their involvement with non-profit organizations?

Hint: One of the first sites I always go to when looking for board involvement is ProPublica.

 

Analyze Their Giving Capacity

Look for wealth indicators—like properties or business ownership—but also consider their lifestyle.

  • Do they have an art collection, watercraft, horses, car collection?
  • What about public company securities?
  • Are there any assets held under their spouse/partner’s name or under an LLC?
  • Do you see evidence of a DAF, family foundation, or a family office?

Hint: DAFinitive® is a great tool to help you search for DAFs. It contains over 90,000 funds from over 700 DAF sponsors, with more being added every week!

 

Personal Insights Matter

This is where you really start to connect with the person behind the donations.

  • Can you find any personal anecdotes?
  • How about information on their hobbies, or passions?
  • Has the donor been featured in a local magazine or spoken at events?

Quotes or stories can provide a glimpse into what matters most to them. Occasionally a tiny nugget of information mentioned in an article about your donor can reveal a world of information you never expected.

Hint: My favorite resources here are to check out local publications and newspapers for your prospect’s hometown, as well as their alumni magazine and any trade journals within their business industry.

 

It’s Alive!

Finally, remember that donor profiles should evolve. Update them regularly with new information or changes in the donor’s status.

A dynamic profile ensures you always have the most relevant information at your fingertips, keeping the focus on the person rather than just the data.

Creating a detailed donor profile doesn’t need to be overwhelming or complicated. By keeping it simple, answering the immediate questions and focusing on the individual behind the donations, you can craft profiles that truly resonate.

By

Ode to the Obituary – A Prospect Research Perspective

by: Maura Monley Baron, Consultant

Maura Monley Baron

Maura Monley Baron

From the beginning of my career as a researcher I have always been drawn to obituaries. Not only because they provide information essential to our work, but I also love the stories they tell and the generational history that can be learned from them.

I see obits as a window into the lives of individuals and families and the people, places, and things that they care about. Last December I worked with my family to write an obituary for a beloved family member. As a researcher, my first instinct was to be cautious with the amount of personal information shared because I know how researchers use this information, and I knew it could be used for identity theft.

However, as we started writing, I found myself letting go of my concerns and wanting to share because I was proud of my family member, and I wanted to tell their story. This experience advanced my appreciation for obituaries and inspired this blog post.

A Brief History of Obituaries

As I started working on this blog my first step was to do a little research about obituaries. In doing so I learned that obituaries have evolved from simple death notices to detailed narratives that tell the story of a person’s life.

The earliest known obituaries date back to ancient Rome. With the invention of the printing press, the newspaper industry boomed, and the tradition of publishing death notices continued. During the American Civil War newspapers published death notices for soldiers, which included biographical details. This practice helped communities keep track of the living and the dead, making obituaries a vital part of the public record.

By the late 20th century, obituaries had become more personal, including family stories and photographs. Today, obituaries are often published online, allowing for even more detailed memorials. Funeral home websites, and the platforms they utilize provide space for families to share photos, stories, and memories, creating a digital tribute and a valuable source of information for our research.

Sometimes you cannot find an obituary – which is frustrating – however my research informed me that obituaries are not a legal requirement, and certain religions and cultures may choose not to publish them for various reasons. Some families may opt not to publish an obituary due to privacy concerns, financial constraints (most newspapers charge by the word to print obituaries), or because the deceased requested not to have one.

Newspaper archives are the best place to find older obituaries and a subscription to Newspapers.com is helpful. Other resources include Legacy, Genealogy Bank, Family Search, Dignity Memorial, and Find a Grave.

Tips for Using Obituaries in your Research

The Basics

To be clear I do understand that a deceased person is not a good prospect. However, the obituary can confirm key information about a person’s life, including birth date and place, education, career, where they lived, and other life events. This gives you an overview of an individual and is useful for verifying information about surviving family members.

Generational Wealth

A “good” obituary can be one of your most valuable tools when working on a complex prospect with generational wealth. Most obituaries list surviving relatives, including spouses, children, siblings, and sometimes even grandchildren or great-grandchildren. This information can help you build family trees and identify connections between different branches of a family. I often find myself revisiting an obituary as I move through my research, and I like to keep the obit open in my browser for reference.

From the 1870s to the 1950s, in conjunction with the publication of an obituary was the practice of publishing details about a deceased person’s will and estate in newspapers. While this seems like an incredible invasion of privacy, I learned that during this period, newspapers were a primary source of information for the public, and legal notices, including probate notices, were often published as part of the public record. This was how surviving family members were notified of the contents of a will and provided a means for distant relatives to discover information about an inheritance (or a missed one). These articles, though not an obituary, will provide detailed information about how much family members inherited, including cash, securities, and real estate.

Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, NY, February 12, 1944

So Much Can Be Learned from a Name

A middle name or even a middle initial can be very helpful for confirming a prospect with a common name. An obituary can also confirm where a prospect lives. By finding these additional details it will be much easier to confirm your prospect when you utilize research tools like LNDP, Kindsight, or ResearchPoint. I also look for a relative of my prospect with a less common name and search for that person on social media which can lead to more information about the family and the ability to confirm relationships.

Obituaries can be particularly helpful in identifying women’s maiden names. Often, I find an indication of generational wealth from first or middle names which identify a last name of a previous generation.

    Baltimore Sun, May 23, 1973

Finding Clues for Further Research

Obituaries detail community affiliations, such as religious organizations, professional associations, or social clubs. Sometimes they include information about where a prospect’s family has lived, including second homes, that may still be in the family. The name of a business found in an obituary can lead to the discovery of a current company and a history of stock ownership by the family. Following these leads often brings you to additional records and sources of information.

 

Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 6, 1996

 

Sacramento Bee, April 15, 1952

Philanthropy

Obituaries also indicate organizations a person was affiliated with as an alum, board member, or volunteer. This may help you confirm gifts from your prospect to these organizations. Information about where a family directs memorial donations can confirm a family’s philanthropic interests or reveal significant donations recognized through naming opportunities. Sometimes a specific donor advised fund name is provided as well.

Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, NY, February 1, 1995

In the End….

When using obituaries for research, it is important to remember that the information provided may not always be 100% accurate, as it is often provided by family members. Cross-referencing with other sources is always necessary for verification.

As with many things in prospect research the obituary will serve as a piece of a larger puzzle. A detail from an obituary may lead you down the road to finding information about your prospect that influences your rating or creates a connection to your organization. I feel most satisfied with my work when I can provide my client with a strong prospect in terms of capacity but also when I feel I have found evidence of a connection between the prospect and their family and the work of the organization, and an obituary often helps with both.

Obituaries have changed significantly from their simple beginnings to the detailed digital memorials of today. They continue to serve not only as a public record of death but also as a celebration of life.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds for obituaries. Like all things their evolution will be influenced by the complex digital world we live in. As a human and a prospect researcher I hope they do not become obsolete as they are important to the process of grieving and provide an opportunity to tell the story of a life well lived while also being an indispensable resource.

Follow Us: Linkedin
617-393-1983
info@helenbrowngroup.com
Helen Brown Group