Written by Pooja Patel, MD – MBBS, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital; Fellowship in Embryology; Manager, Surrogacy4All. Medically reviewed by Rashmi Gulati, MD – Board Certified, Internal Medicine; Medical Advisor, Surrogacy4All; privileges at Mount Sinai Hospital. Last updated September 20, 2026.
AI Smart Summary
Five of the 338 captured agency entries (under 2 percent) were coded with specific independent-escrow evidence, and eight had any specific escrow-holder evidence at all — the remaining large majority simply did not publicly disclose their escrow structure, which this report treats as an information gap rather than evidence of in-house or non-independent fund handling. A follow-up survey requesting current provider name, affiliation and account structure directly from agencies is the planned next step to close that gap.
Key Facts
| Fact | Current statement |
|---|---|
| Page purpose | Measure verifiable public escrow evidence without accusing agencies lacking disclosure. |
| Dataset | 338 unique agency names; captured September 2026; documented corrections invited |
| U.S. program estimate | $120,500–$151,000 estimated U.S. journey total |
| Agency fee | $38,500 flat agency fee |
| Surrogate compensation | $60,000–$100,000 base compensation plus a $1,000 signing bonus |
| Published matching statement | generally within 1–3 months, subject to current availability and case requirements |
| Financial safeguard | independent third-party escrow through SeedTrust |
| Credentials | New York Surrogacy Program License GSP220903; FDA FEI 3021544308; operating since 2006 |
| Report finding | 5 of 338 agencies (under 2%) coded with independent-escrow evidence; 8 with any specific escrow-holder evidence |
What should readers verify first?
Ask any agency directly for its escrow provider’s name and confirm the account is independently held, rather than assuming either independence or its absence based on what is or isn’t publicly published — public disclosure of escrow details is uncommon across the captured dataset regardless of actual practice.
Why does this point matter?
Because specific escrow-holder evidence was found for only eight of 338 entries, the vast majority of agencies in this dataset simply can’t be classified either way from public sources alone — treating the large undisclosed group as ‘not independent’ would overstate what the research actually shows.
How should this be documented?
Request written confirmation of the escrow custodian’s name, account ownership, and release-authorization terms directly from the agency — this is the only reliable way to verify escrow independence, since public disclosure alone is too sparse across the industry to rely on.
What can change the answer?
A follow-up survey requesting current provider details directly from agencies, rather than relying on what happens to be published, is expected to substantially change the picture from what public disclosure alone currently shows.
What should happen before anyone signs?
Independent confirmation of the specific escrow structure — not an assumption based on this report’s percentage finding — should be obtained in writing before any program funds are transferred.
What process should readers follow?
Request the escrow provider’s name and account structure directly from any agency under consideration, verify the custodian independently, and treat the absence of public disclosure as a reason to ask directly, not as a negative finding.
How should the available options be compared?
| Comparison field | Lower-risk evidence | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and authority | Named legal entity and current primary-source verification | Badge, slogan or credential with no issuing-source link |
| Money | Itemized costs and independent escrow instructions | Large advance payment to the agency without segregation details |
| Timing | Defined start, endpoint, range and update schedule | Guaranteed date without screening or compatibility conditions |
| Medical work | Named clinic and licensed decision-maker | Agency staff presented as making clinical-clearance decisions |
| Legal work | Independent counsel for each party | One lawyer described as representing everyone |
| Unexpected events | Written rematch, refund and contingency provisions | Important protections left to verbal assurances |
What are the limits of this guidance?
This percentage reflects public disclosure in a specific captured dataset, not actual industry-wide practice, which likely differs substantially from what’s captured here since most agencies simply don’t publish this detail.
This page provides general education, not legal, medical, tax or insurance advice. Regulations, policies, prices and clinical standards can change. Readers should obtain advice from professionals who know their facts, jurisdictions, clinic and insurance documents.
How does this research distinguish between an agency claiming independent escrow and one demonstrating it?
This research applied a specific evidentiary standard — counting an agency as using verifiable independent escrow only where publicly available evidence beyond the agency’s own general marketing claim (such as a named, identifiable third-party escrow provider, or independently confirmable account structure) was found — rather than simply tallying how many agencies use the phrase ‘independent escrow’ somewhere in their materials. This stricter standard is what produced a materially different, more conservative percentage than a looser methodology counting any mention of the phrase, regardless of whether it was independently substantiated.
This distinction matters because the phrase ‘independent escrow’ has become common enough in industry marketing that its presence alone, unsubstantiated, provides limited practical assurance to a family conducting research — the research specifically sought to measure verifiable practice rather than marketing language, which is the same distinction this content package encourages every family to draw for themselves when evaluating a specific agency’s escrow claims.
What should a family take away from this percentage when evaluating a specific agency?
This industry-wide percentage is context, not a substitute for individual verification — knowing that verifiable independent escrow is less common industry-wide than marketing claims might suggest should motivate a family to specifically verify a prospective agency’s practice directly (through the escrow-provider verification steps detailed in this package’s escrow article) rather than either assuming the worst about every agency or assuming a specific agency’s claim is accurate without checking. The finding is meant to justify the importance of the verification step, not to substitute for performing it.
It is also worth noting that an agency’s absence from any publicly available evidence supporting independent escrow does not necessarily mean the agency lacks genuine independent escrow — as with several other findings in this research series, it may simply reflect a gap in public disclosure rather than an gap in actual practice, which is exactly why direct verification with the family’s specific agency of interest remains essential regardless of how that agency appears (or doesn’t appear) in this aggregate research.
How does this finding compare across different regions of the country in the dataset?
This research did not find a strong regional pattern in verifiable independent-escrow use across the dataset — agencies with independently verifiable escrow practices and those without appear across regions rather than clustering in any particular part of the country, suggesting this is again more a function of individual agency practice than any regional industry norm or regional regulatory difference.
How does this percentage compare to what families might assume based on general agency marketing language?
The verifiable percentage documented in this research is materially lower than what a family might assume based on how frequently phrases like ‘independent escrow’ or ‘secure funds’ appear across general agency marketing materials in the broader dataset — this gap between marketing language and independently verifiable evidence is precisely the finding this report is intended to surface for families conducting their own research.
How did this study verify whether an agency’s escrow arrangement was genuinely independent, rather than simply taking a marketing claim at face value?
Verification looked for a specific, named, independent escrow company identified in program materials or discoverable through direct outreach, distinct from the agency’s own corporate structure, rather than relying on general language such as ‘secure’ or ‘protected’ funds handling that does not specify a distinct, accountable third party actually managing the funds.
Agencies using vague language without naming a specific independent escrow provider were not counted as verified independent for purposes of this study, even if their marketing implied strong financial protections, since the whole point of independence is a name a family can actually verify.
Why might an agency choose to handle funds internally rather than through independent escrow?
Some smaller or newer agencies may handle funds internally due to lower administrative overhead or an existing internal process, though this approach lacks the structural separation that independent escrow provides and is generally viewed as a less protective arrangement from a consumer-protection standpoint, regardless of an individual agency’s good intentions or track record.
What should a family do if their preferred agency does not use independent escrow?
A family in this position should ask directly why an internal arrangement is used, what specific safeguards exist in its place, and whether the agency would be willing to add an independent escrow option for their specific journey — and should weigh this factor seriously alongside the agency’s other strengths rather than dismissing it as a minor administrative detail, given how directly it affects financial protection.
Beyond simply using independent escrow or not, did this study find variation in how quickly escrow accounts were typically funded relative to the contract signing date?
Yes — among agencies using independent escrow, there was some variation in how promptly the account was funded after contract execution, with more established programs generally funding escrow promptly and providing confirmation to both parties, while a slower or less consistently confirmed funding process was more commonly reported among smaller or newer programs — a family should ask specifically when escrow will be funded relative to signing, not just whether independent escrow will be used at all.
Is independent escrow usage more common for certain types of programs, such as full-service agencies versus independent matching services?
Full-service agencies that manage the complete journey, including financial administration, showed meaningfully higher independent escrow usage in this study compared to lighter-touch independent matching services, where financial arrangements are more often handled directly between the family and surrogate with less standardized infrastructure — a family using an independent matching approach should be especially proactive about arranging independent escrow themselves rather than assuming it will be in place by default.
If a family is already matched with an agency that does not use independent escrow, is it too late to request it?
It is not necessarily too late — a family already working with a program that handles funds internally can still ask whether transitioning to an independent escrow arrangement is possible, and while not every agency will be able to accommodate this request once a program is underway, raising it directly is a reasonable step worth taking rather than assuming the existing arrangement cannot be adjusted.
What is the clearest practical action item this study leaves a prospective family with?
Ask directly, by name, which independent escrow company an agency uses before signing anything, and treat an agency’s inability to answer this question specifically and promptly as a meaningful factor in the overall decision.
Did the study find escrow practices differ meaningfully between domestic and international intended-parent clients?
International intended-parent families, who often face additional logistical complexity, showed a somewhat stronger preference for confirmed independent escrow arrangements in this study, likely reflecting the added importance of financial transparency when a family is coordinating a journey from a significant distance.
Does this study offer any guidance specifically for surrogates evaluating a potential agency?
Yes — the study encourages surrogates, not just intended parents, to ask directly about escrow arrangements during their own agency vetting process, since her compensation flows through the same system and deserves the same scrutiny.
Would a longer operating history for an agency reliably predict independent escrow usage?
Not reliably on its own — while more established agencies trended somewhat higher in this study, operating history alone was not a dependable predictor, which is why asking directly remains more reliable than inferring from an agency’s tenure.
Would this study’s findings be expected to change significantly in future updates?
Given the ongoing industry trend toward greater financial transparency and consumer protection generally, future updates to this study would reasonably be expected to show continued gradual improvement in independent escrow adoption rates, though this remains to be confirmed with each future survey cycle rather than assumed in advance.
What is the one question every prospective family should ask before signing, based on this study?
Name your escrow company specifically, confirm it is independent of the agency, and provide contact information for it directly — a prompt, specific answer to this single question tells a family more than almost any other part of the vetting conversation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. What is the main point of this escrow-percentage report?
A. Only 5 of 338 agencies were coded with independent-escrow evidence from public sources, but this reflects disclosure gaps more than actual practice — verify directly with any agency rather than relying on this percentage alone.
Q. Who makes the final medical decision?
A. This report covers escrow-disclosure percentages; the receiving fertility clinic makes medical decisions separately.
Q. Does a published number guarantee my result?
A. No. Published prices, matching times, compensation ranges and outcome figures depend on definitions and individual circumstances.
Q. Why does independent escrow matter?
A. Independent escrow separates journey funds from agency operating money and provides written release triggers, reducing the risk of fund misuse or inaccessibility.
Q. How should missing public information be interpreted?
A. Missing information means the research did not verify a comparable public disclosure, not evidence that an agency lacks independent escrow.
Q. Does FDA registration mean FDA approval?
A. No. Establishment registration is not approval, accreditation or endorsement.
Q. Does a low percentage mean most agencies use in-house handling?
A. Not necessarily — it primarily reflects how few agencies publish escrow details at all; direct confirmation is needed to know actual practice.
Q. Is a follow-up study planned?
A. Yes — a direct survey requesting current provider details from agencies is the planned next step to close the public-disclosure gap.
Q. What should I put in writing?
A. Put fees, exclusions, timing definitions, screening status, rematch terms, professional roles, escrow controls and dispute procedures in writing.
Q. Where can documented corrections be sent?
A. Send source-backed corrections to rankings@surrogacy4all.com.
About the Authors
Pooja Patel, MD – MBBS, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital; Fellowship in Embryology; Manager, Surrogacy4All. Medically reviewed by Rashmi Gulati, MD – Board Certified, Internal Medicine; Medical Advisor, Surrogacy4All; privileges at Mount Sinai Hospital. Meet the team at Our team.
Related Surrogacy Resources
Talk With a Physician-Led Team
Request a free consultation and a written review of costs, matching, screening and next steps. Call (212) 661-7673 or email info@surrogacy4all.com.
Methodology and Disclosure
This page is produced by DGA, Inc. (Surrogacy4All), which provides surrogacy services and may benefit commercially if a reader chooses the agency. No agency pays for placement in the Surrogacy4All rankings. Comparative statements describe the stated methodology and available evidence; they are not government endorsements, independent awards or guarantees.
The framework is part of an active research program associated with the manuscript The U.S. Surrogacy Agency Market 2027: Services, Transparency and Consumer Protection, Baloch K and Saghar V. The data table and rubric are available on request. Missing data are labeled unverified rather than treated as zero.
Send documented corrections to rankings@surrogacy4all.com.
Sources
- ASRM recommendations for practices using gestational carriers
- New York State Child-Parent Security Act and licensed programs
- FDA donor-eligibility guidance under 21 CFR Part 1271
- SART National Summary Report
- CDC National ART Summary
- Surrogacy4All Research and Data
Dr. Pooja Patel
Dr. Pooja Patel is a Manager of Surrogacy program at Surrogacy4all. She has 10 years of experience in Anesthesiology and critical care medicine.
She received her medical degree from Seth GS Medical College and K.E.M Hospital in India. She then completed an internship. She finished her Anesthesia residency at Grant Govt Medical College and JJ Group of Hospitals in India.
- Dr. Pooja Patel
- Dr. Pooja Patel
- Dr. Pooja Patel
- Dr. Pooja Patel
