Download:
pdf |
pdfFEDER AL DEPOSIT INSUR ANCE CORPOR ATION
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and
Financial Services
2019 FDIC Survey
ECONOMICINCLUSION.GOV
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Acknowledgements
How America Banks presents results from the 2019 FDIC
Rosalind Bennett, Susan Burhouse, Anthony Cataldo,
Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services.
Leonard Chanin, Keith Ernst, Ryan Goodstein,
The survey has been conducted biennially since 2009 in
Alexander LePore Jr., Jane Lewin, Lynne Montgomery,
partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau.
Joyce Northwood, Yazmin Osaki, Richard Schwartz,
Dhruv Sharma, Philip Shively, Donna Vogel, and
The report was conducted under the careful direction
Sam Waxenbaum.
of Karyen Chu of the FDIC’s Division of Insurance and
Research. The primary authors of the report were Mark
Finally, we thank the staff of the Current Population
Kutzbach, Alicia Lloro, and Jeffrey Weinstein.
Survey (CPS) at the U.S. Census Bureau who worked
closely with the FDIC to ensure successful execution of
I would like to thank the many FDIC senior officials,
survey data collection and processing.
staff, and contractors who provided valuable feedback,
analytical support, research assistance, website
Diane Ellis
development, and publication support, including
Director, Division of Insurance and Research
Recommended citation: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), How America Banks: Household Use of Banking and
Financial Services, 2019 FDIC Survey (October 2020).
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | III
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................................................................III
Preface.......................................................................................................................................................................................................VII
1. Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................1
2. About the Survey................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
3. Bank Account Ownership: Unbanked Households...................................................................................................................... 12
4. Bank Account Ownership: Banked Households............................................................................................................................21
5. Prepaid Cards....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
6. Nonbank Financial Transaction Services..................................................................................................................................... 35
7. Bank and Nonbank Credit................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Postscript: Potential Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic on Household Use of Banking and
Financial Services....................................................................................................................................................................................54
Appendix 1. FDIC Technical Notes........................................................................................................................................................ 57
Appendix 2. 2019 Revisions to the FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services......................................62
Appendix 3. 2019 Survey Instrument..................................................................................................................................................65
Appendix Tables A–E (published separately on economicinclusion.gov)
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | V
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Preface
How America Banks presents results from the 2019 FDIC
In light of the extraordinary economic and social dis-
Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services,
ruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the present
conducted in June of that year. The results therefore
report includes a postscript that draws on findings from
reflect a period of generally favorable economic condi-
the 2019 and earlier surveys to address possible conse-
tions. The next survey will be fielded in June 2021, with a
quences for the unbanked rate. The postscript also dis-
report expected in 2022.
cusses potential pandemic-related challenges faced by
households in conducting financial transactions, visiting
bank branches, saving for unexpected expenses or emergencies, and obtaining credit.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | VII
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
1. Executive Summary
How America Banks informs the FDIC’s mission of maintaining public confidence in the U.S. financial system.
Figure ES.1 National Estimates, Household Unbanked
Rate by Year (Percent)
The findings presented in this report come from the FDIC
Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services.1
7.6
8.2
7.7
This survey has been conducted biennially since 2009 in
7.0
6.5
partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau. The most recent
5.4
survey was conducted in June 2019, collecting responses
from almost 33,000 households.
This executive summary presents key results from How
America Banks, covering bank account ownership, use of
2009
prepaid cards and nonbank financial transaction ser-
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
vices, and use of bank and nonbank credit.
of U.S. households over this period. However, even
National Unbanked Rate
•
after these improvements were accounted for,
An estimated 5.4 percent of U.S. households were
the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate
“unbanked” in 2019, meaning that no one in the
across years was statistically significant.3
household had a checking or savings account at a bank
or credit union (i.e., bank). This proportion represents
•
8.2 percent, and 2019, the unbanked rate fell by
approximately 7.1 million U.S. households. Converse-
2.8 percentage points, corresponding to an increase of
ly, 94.6 percent of U.S. households were “banked” in
approximately 3.7 million banked households.
2019, meaning that at least one member of the house-
» About two-thirds of the decline in the unbanked
hold had a checking or savings account. This pro-
rate between 2011 and 2019 was associated with
portion represents approximately 124.2 million U.S.
improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances
households.
•
of U.S. households over this period.
The proportion of U.S. households that were unbanked
(i.e., the unbanked rate) in 2019—5.4 percent—was
the lowest since the survey began in 2009, as shown
in Figure ES.1. Between 2017 and 2019, the unbanked
rate fell by 1.1 percentage points, corresponding to
an increase of approximately 1.5 million banked
Between 2011, when the unbanked rate peaked at
Unbanked Rates by Household Characteristics and
Geography
•
Consistent with the results of previous surveys,
in 2019 unbanked rates varied considerably across
the U.S. population.4 For example, unbanked rates
households.2
were higher among lower-income households,
» About half of the decline in the unbanked rate
less-educated households, Black households, His-
between 2017 and 2019 was associated with
improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances
panic households, American Indian or Alaska Native
Before 2019, the survey was named FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. The new survey name describes the content of the
survey, which asks a nationally representative sample of U.S. households about their use of banking and financial services.
2
All differences discussed in the text are statistically significant at the 10 percent level unless noted otherwise. In other words, there is a 10 percent or
lower probability that the difference observed in the survey is due to chance.
3
A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes between 2017 and 2019 in the distribution of households across the householdlevel characteristics shown in Table 3.4. About half of the difference in the unbanked rate between 2017 and 2019 was associated with changes in the
socioeconomic characteristics of households (annual income level, monthly income volatility, employment status, homeownership status, and educational
attainment) over this period. Adding controls for the remaining demographic characteristics shown in Table 3.4 had little effect on the remainder of the
difference in the unbanked rate.
4
For person-level characteristics, such as race, age, and education, the characteristics of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., the householder) are used to
represent the household. For convenience, abbreviated language is used in referring to certain household characteristics. For example, the term “Hispanic
household” refers to a household for which the householder identifies as Hispanic or Latino regardless of race, and the term “Black household” refers to a
household for which the householder identifies as Black or African American alone and not Hispanic or Latino. The term “working-age disabled household”
refers to a household for which the householder has a disability and is between the ages of 25 and 64. See Appendix 1 for additional details.
1
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 1
households, working-age disabled households, and
•
•
of urban households were unbanked, compared with
For most segments of the population, unbanked rates
6.2 percent of rural households and 3.7 percent of sub-
in 2019 were lower than or similar to unbanked rates
urban households.9 These unbanked rates were lower
in recent years.
» Recent declines have been particularly sharp
for Black and Hispanic households. Specifically,
13.8 percent of Black households were unbanked
than in 2017.
Unbanked Households: Previous Bank Account Ownership
•
holds in 2019, half (50.4 percent) had had a bank
18.5 percent in 2015. Among Hispanic households,
account at some point in the past (i.e., had previously
12.2 percent were unbanked in 2019, down from
been banked), slightly higher than in previous years
14.4 percent in 2017 and 16.3 percent in 2015.6
(47.0 percent in 2017 and 47.3 percent in 2015).
Despite the improvements in unbanked rates for
2019 for these households remained substantially above the unbanked rate for White households
Unbanked Households: Interest in Having a Bank Account
•
interested in having a bank account, while 24.8 per-
The unbanked rate for working-age disabled house-
cent were very or somewhat interested.
holds was roughly constant between 2011 and 2017:
» These estimates are qualitatively similar to those
18.9 percent in 2011, 18.4 percent in 2013, 17.6 percent
from the 2017 survey, though changes in the word-
in 2015, and 18.1 percent in 2017. In 2019, while still
ing of the survey question do not allow for direct
much higher than the unbanked rate for working-age
comparisons.10
nondisabled households (4.5 percent), the unbanked
rate for working-age disabled households (16.2 percent) declined to its lowest level since 2011.7
•
As shown in Figure ES.2, among unbanked households
in 2019, more than half (56.2 percent) were not at all
(2.5 percent).
•
As discussed in previous reports, bank account
ownership is not static. Among unbanked house-
in 2019, down from 16.8 percent in 2017 and
Black and Hispanic households, unbanked rates in
Unbanked rates also varied by the metropolitan
status of a household’s residence. In 2019, 8.1 percent
households with volatile income.5
Regional variation in unbanked rates was similar in
2019 to previous years, with unbanked rates highest in
the South. The unbanked rate in the South in 2019 was
6.2 percent, compared with 5.0 percent in the Midwest, 4.9 percent in the West, and 4.7 percent in the
Northeast.8 However, differences in unbanked rates
between the South and the other regions have narrowed in recent years.
•
Interest in having a bank account was higher among
households that had previously been banked, especially those with more recent account ownership.
Interest was also higher among Black unbanked
households, compared with White unbanked
households.
Unbanked Households: Reasons for Not Having a
Bank Account
As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked unbanked
households about their reasons for not having a bank
account. Patterns are similar to those reported in previous years.
For monthly income volatility, all households were asked whether their income over the past 12 months was about the same each month, varied somewhat
from month to month, or varied a lot from month to month. The term “volatile income” refers to a household with income that varied somewhat or a lot
from month to month.
6
About 70 percent of the decline in the unbanked rate for Black households and about 60 percent of the decline in the unbanked rate for Hispanic
households between 2015 and 2019 were associated with changes in income and the other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4. After these changes
were accounted for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate for Black households was not statistically significant, while the remainder of the
decline in the unbanked rate for Hispanic households was statistically significant.
7
About half of the decline in the unbanked rate for working-age disabled households between 2011 and 2019 was associated with changes in income and
the other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4 (except for monthly income volatility, which was not available for 2011). After these changes were
accounted for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate for working-age disabled households was no longer statistically significant.
8
Differences in unbanked rates between the South and each of the other three regions in 2019 were associated primarily with differences in income and
other characteristics of U.S. households. These geographical differences were no longer statistically significant after differences in the other household
characteristics shown in Table 3.4 were accounted for.
9
For the purposes of this report, a household is classified as urban if the household resides in a principal city of a metropolitan area, suburban if the
household resides in a metropolitan area but not in a principal city, and rural if the household does not reside in a metropolitan area. In 2019, 29.2 percent
of households were classified as urban, 43.6 percent as suburban, and 13.0 percent as rural. (See Table 3.4.) For the remaining 14.2 percent of households,
the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, and rural status to maintain confidentiality, though most of these households were either
urban or suburban.
10
The 2019 survey asked unbanked households how interested they were in having a bank account (with no specific time horizon), while the 2013–2017
surveys asked unbanked households how likely they were to open a bank account in the next 12 months. In 2017, 58.7 percent of unbanked households
were not at all likely, 16.3 percent were not very likely, 15.6 percent were somewhat likely, and 9.5 percent were very likely to open an account in the next
12 months.
5
2 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure ES.2 Interest in Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, by Previous Bank Account Ownership,
2019 (Percent)
All
7.8
Previously
Banked
17.0
11.1
Never
Banked 4.5
18.9
20.6
13.4
56.2
20.1
48.2
17.8
Very Interested
64.4
Somewhat Interested
Not Very Interested
Not at All Interested
Figure ES.3 Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, 2019 (Percent)
Don't Have Enough Money to Meet
Minimum Balance Requirements
Don't Trust Banks
36.0
7.1
Bank Account Fees Are Too High
Personal Identification, Credit, or
Former Bank Account Problems
36.3
16.1
Avoiding a Bank Gives More Privacy
Bank Account Fees Are Too Unpredictable
34.2
7.3
31.3
1.6
20.5
8.0
Banks Do Not Offer Needed Products and Services
19.6
1.9
Bank Locations Are Inconvenient
14.1
2.2
Bank Hours Are Inconvenient
13.0
2.4
Other Reason
13.9
17.8
10.4
10.4
Did Not Select a Reason
Cited
•
Main
minimum balance requirements” as a reason for not
Unbanked Households: Satisfaction With Most Recent
Bank and Clarity of Banks’ Communications About
Account Fees
having an account—the most cited reason. This rea-
To complement existing questions on reasons for not
son was also the most cited main reason for not having
having a bank account, the 2019 survey included new
an account.
questions on unbanked households’ satisfaction with
As illustrated in Figure ES.3, about half of unbanked
households cited “Don’t have enough money to meet
•
48.9
29.0
their most recent bank and on their perceptions of how
“Don’t trust banks” was cited by approximately
clearly banks in general communicate account fees.11
one-third of unbanked households as a reason for
not having an account and was the second-most cited
main reason.
•
Among unbanked households that had previously
been banked, 24.3 percent were very satisfied with
their most recent bank, 30.8 percent somewhat
Banked households were asked alternative versions of the two questions, having to do with their satisfaction with their primary bank and with their
perceptions of how clearly their bank communicates account fees. Findings are discussed later in this executive summary.
11
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 3
Table ES.1 Primary Method Used to Access Bank Account by Year
For Banked Households That Accessed Their Account in the Past 12 Months, Row Percent
•
Year
Bank Teller
(Percent)
ATM/Kiosk
(Percent)
Telephone
Banking
(Percent)
Online Banking
(Percent)
Mobile Banking
(Percent)
Other
(Percent)
2015
28.2
21.0
3.0
36.9
9.5
0.9
2017
24.3
19.9
2.9
36.0
15.6
0.7
2019
21.0
19.5
2.4
22.8
34.0
0.3
satisfied, 14.4 percent not very satisfied, 22.8 percent
among banked households (dropping from 36.9 percent
not satisfied at all, and 7.7 percent did not know.12
in 2015 and 36.0 percent in 2017 to 22.8 percent in 2019).
Interest in having a bank account was higher among
decline was modest compared with the decline in use
of online banking, and use of bank tellers remained
unbanked households that were not very satisfied or
prevalent (21.0 percent in 2019).
•
The changes between 2015 and 2019 described above
Among unbanked households that had previously
occurred broadly across different segments of the
been banked, 17.4 percent thought banks in general
population. These trends are consistent with house-
communicated account fees very clearly, 29.4 per-
holds’ switching from online banking to mobile
cent somewhat clearly, 20.8 percent not very clearly,
banking as a primary method to access their bank
22.4 percent not clearly at all, and 10.0 percent did not
accounts.
know.
•
Use of bank tellers continued to decline, though this
satisfied with their most recent bank, compared with
not satisfied at all with their most recent bank.
•
•
unbanked households that were very or somewhat
Interest in having a bank account was higher among
unbanked households that thought banks communi-
Banked Households: Bank Branch Visits
•
a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch
cated account fees very or somewhat clearly, com-
(i.e., visited a bank branch) in the past 12 months,
pared with unbanked households that thought banks
communicated account fees not very clearly or not
clearly at all.
In 2019, 83.0 percent of banked households spoke with
down slightly from 86.0 percent in 2017.
•
The frequency of bank branch visits declined somewhat between 2017 and 2019. As Figure ES.4 shows,
Banked Households: Primary Methods Used to Access
Bank Accounts
the share of banked households visiting a branch
As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked banked
banked households visiting a branch one to four times
households about the primary (i.e., most common)
increased.
ten or more times declined, whereas the share of
method they used to access their accounts in the past
12 months: visiting a bank teller, using an ATM or bank
kiosk, calling the bank (i.e., telephone banking), using
a mobile phone including an app (i.e., mobile banking),
Figure ES.4 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked
Households, by Year (Percent)
using a computer or tablet (i.e., online banking), or using
some other method (i.e., other).
•
30.8
Use of mobile banking as a primary method of account
access in the past 12 months continued to increase
sharply (from 9.5 percent in 2015 and 15.6 percent in
14.0
36.3
35.4
28.4
18.2 18.3
17.0
2017 to 34.0 percent in 2019), overtaking online bank-
0 Times
ing as the most prevalent primary method. (Table ES.1
reports the finding for each primary method used to
2017
access a bank account by year, starting with 2015.)
•
Use of online banking as a primary method of account
access decreased substantially but remained prevalent
1 to 4
Times
5 to 9
Times
10 or More
Times
2019
Note: For 2017, not shown are households that visited a branch but with unknown
frequency (1.6 percent of banked households).
“Don’t know” was not one of the four administered response options to the questions on satisfaction and clarity. Some households did not choose one of
the four administered response options and instead volunteered “don’t know.” See Appendix 1 for details.
12
4 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure ES.5 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked Households, by Metropolitan Status, 2019 (Percent)
41.6
38.2
38.2
29.3
26.2
22.6
20.8
18.4
17.0
18.6
16.7
12.3
0 Times
1 to 4 Times
5 to 9 Times
Urban
Suburban
10 or More Times
Rural
Note: This figure does not display bank branch visits for banked households where—to maintain confidentiality—the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, or
rural status (14.3 percent of banked households).
•
•
Older households and households with volatile income
•
were more likely to visit a branch and to visit ten or
their primary bank and thought that fees were clearly
more times.
communicated: 97.3 percent were very or somewhat
satisfied with their primary bank, and 92.1 percent
Bank branch visits among banked households
thought their bank communicated account fees very
v aried substantially across metropolitan status (see
Figure ES.5). In 2019, nearly nine in ten rural households visited a branch, and about four in ten rural
or somewhat clearly.13
•
households visited ten or more times.
•
Almost all banked households were satisfied with
About nine in ten banked households (91.0 percent)
were in both groups, being satisfied (very or somewhat) with their primary bank and thinking their
Branch visits were prevalent even among banked
bank’s communication of account fees was clear (very
households that used online or mobile banking as
or somewhat). Households that thought their bank
their primary method of account access. For exam-
communicated fees very or somewhat clearly were
ple, in 2019, about four in five (79.9 percent) banked
17.3 percentage points more likely to be very or some-
households that used mobile banking as their primary
what satisfied with their primary bank (98.8 percent),
method visited a branch in the past 12 months, and
compared with households that thought their bank
about one in five (18.8 percent) banked households
communicated fees not very clearly or not clearly at
that used mobile banking as their primary method
visited ten or more times.
all (81.5 percent).
•
Banked households’ satisfaction with their primary
Banked Households: Satisfaction With Primary Bank and
Clarity of Bank’s Communication About Account Fees
bank and their perceptions of how clearly their bank
The 2019 survey included new questions for banked
across different segments of the population (e.g., dif-
households, asking about their satisfaction with their
ferent income and education levels).
communicated account fees were consistently high
primary bank and about their perceptions of how clearly
their bank communicates account fees.
As discussed above, 55.1 percent of unbanked households that had previously been banked were very or somewhat satisfied with their most recent bank.
This percentage is about half the percentage of banked households that were very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank (97.3 percent).
13
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 5
•
Banked households that were not satisfied with their
Nonbank Financial Transaction Services
primary bank or those that thought their bank did not
As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked all house-
communicate account fees clearly were more likely
holds about use in the past 12 months of nonbank money
to use a nonbank financial transaction service (in
orders, check cashing, and remittances sent abroad. In
particular, at least one of the following: money orders,
addition, the 2019 survey was the first to include ques-
check cashing, or bill payment services) than were
tions about two other types of nonbank financial trans-
banked households that were satisfied or that did
action services: bill payment services (such as are offered
think fees were clearly communicated. Among house-
by Western Union and MoneyGram) and use of a website
holds that were not very satisfied or not satisfied at
or app to send or receive money inside the United States
all, 22.3 percent used at least one of those three non-
(examples are PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App).17 The latter
bank financial transaction services, compared with
service is known as a peer-to-peer or person-to-person
14.9 percent of households that were very or some-
(P2P) payment service.18
what satisfied. Among households that thought that
•
fees were communicated not very clearly or not clearly
5.5 percent used check cashing, and 4.9 percent used
at all, 20.1 percent used at least one of those three
bill payment services. Altogether, 17.2 percent of
nonbank financial transaction services, compared
households used at least one of those three services
with 14.7 percent of households that thought fees were
(money orders, check cashing, or bill payment ser-
communicated very or somewhat clearly.
vices) in the past 12 months. In addition, 5.5 percent
of households used international remittances, and
Prepaid Cards
Some consumers, both banked and unbanked, use general purpose reloadable prepaid cards to conduct financial
31.1 percent used P2P payment services.
•
0.7 percentage points.19 Only a small portion of these
ATMs, making purchases, depositing checks, and receiv-
changes were associated with changes in the socio-
ing direct deposits.14
economic circumstances of U.S. households between
In 2019, 8.5 percent of U.S. households used prepaid
2017 and 2019. The use of international remittances
cards in the past 12 months, down from 9.7 percent in
increased between 2017 and 2019. This increase was
2017 and 10.2 percent in 2015.15
•
broad-based, ranging across almost all population
segments.
Differences in prepaid card use across households in
2019 were similar to the differences in earlier years.
Prepaid card use was higher among lower-income
•
for money orders and check cashing. Younger house-
households, Black households, working-age disabled
holds, less-educated households, and Black, Hispanic,
households, and households with volatile income. For
and American Indian or Alaska Native households
example, 14.8 percent of Black households used pre-
were more likely to use these three transaction ser-
paid cards in 2019, compared with 7.6 percent of White
vices, as were lower-income households and house-
households.
Prepaid card use continued to be more prevalent
among unbanked households than among banked
households. In 2019, 27.7 percent of unbanked households used a prepaid card, compared with 7.4 percent
of banked households.16
In terms of household characteristics, patterns of use
for bill payment services were similar to the patterns
households, less-educated households, younger
•
Between 2017 and 2019, use of money orders fell by
2.3 percentage points and use of check cashing fell by
transactions, such as paying bills, withdrawing cash at
•
In 2019, 11.9 percent of households used money orders,
holds with volatile income.
•
The characteristics of households that made P2P payments were substantially different from the characteristics of households that used the other nonbank
transaction services. Use of P2P payment services was
higher among households with income of $75,000 or
The survey questions on prepaid cards instructed households not to consider gift cards.
The estimates of prepaid card use in 2017 and 2015 reported in this subsection differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how
nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
16
Prepaid card use among unbanked and banked households was lower in 2019 than in 2015 and 2017; however, the decline among unbanked households
between 2015 and 2019 was not statistically significant, while the decline among banked households was statistically significant.
17
Nonbank bill payment service providers offer money transfer services including bill payment. Customers can pay with cash at physical locations, either
stores or kiosks, or by using online payment methods.
18
To conduct P2P payments, households typically must have a bank account, a prepaid card, or a credit card, with requirements varying across P2P payment
service providers.
19
The estimates of nonbank financial transaction services use in 2017 reported in this subsection differ from those published in earlier reports due to a
difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
14
15
6 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure ES.6 Frequency of Use of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services, 2019 (Percent)
4.6
4.4
2.9
2.4
1.8
Money Order
1.9
1.9
1.8
Check Cashing
1.7
1.4
Bill Payment Service
Often
Sometimes
1.4
1.7
International Remittance
Rarely
Notes: This figure does not report the percentage of households that did not use the particular service in the past 12 months. For nonbank money orders, check cashing, bill
payment services, and international remittances, 88.1, 94.5, 95.1, and 94.5 percent of households, respectively, did not use the particular service.
more, households with a college degree, younger and
•
orders, 4.0 percent used check cashing, and 4.4 per-
abled households.
cent used bill payment services; 15.0 percent used
at least one of these three transaction services. In
» Use of P2P payment services requires access to the
addition, 5.3 percent of banked households used
internet with either a smartphone or a computer.
international remittances, and 32.3 percent used P2P
About one in three households (33.9 percent) that
had smartphone access or home internet access
made P2P payments in 2019, compared with only
2.9 percent of households that had neither.
payment services.
•
The 2019 survey included new questions on the frequency of use of nonbank transaction services other
than P2P payment services, specifically on whether
» Among users of at least one among the group
consisting of money orders, check cashing, and bill
payment services, about a third (32.3 percent) also
used P2P payment services, whereas fewer than
one in five P2P users (17.9 percent) also used any of
those other three nonbank transaction services.
•
Among banked households, 10.2 percent used money
middle-aged households, and working-age nondis-
In 2019 among unbanked households, 42.3 percent
used money orders, 31.9 percent used check cashing,
and 14.4 percent used bill payment services; more
each nonbank transaction service was used often,
sometimes, or rarely (see Figure ES.6). For each of the
four nonbank transaction services, the population
segments (e.g., those without a high school diploma)
that more commonly used a nonbank transaction
service (at all) also tended to use that service more
frequently.
» In 2019, 7.3 percent of households used money
orders sometimes or often. Of these households,
than half (56.1 percent) used at least one of these
three transaction services. In addition, 9.4 percent of
unbanked households used international remittances,
almost nine in ten (87.1 percent) used a money
order to pay bills.
and 8.8 percent used P2P payment services.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 7
Bank and Nonbank Credit
decline in nonbank credit use occurred broadly across
The 2019 survey examines household use of bank credit
different segments of the population.
and nonbank credit, focusing on products that house-
•
holds may use to address cash-flow imbalances, unex-
Lower-income households, less-educated households,
Black households, Hispanic households, American
pected expenses, or temporary income shortfalls.20 A
Indian or Alaska Native households, and working-age
household is considered to have used bank credit if, in
disabled households were less likely to use bank credit.
the past 12 months, it had a Visa, MasterCard, American
» Differences by education and income were especial-
Express, or Discover credit card (i.e., a credit card) or a
ly pronounced. For example, in 2019, only 37.1 per-
personal loan or line of credit from a bank (i.e., a bank
cent of households without a high school diploma
personal loan). A household is considered to have used
used bank credit, compared with 87.5 percent of
nonbank credit if it used a rent-to-own service or a pay-
households with a college degree. Similarly, only
day, auto title, pawn shop, or tax refund anticipation loan
37.0 percent of households with less than $15,000 in
in the past 12 months.21
•
income used bank credit, compared with 89.9 per-
The share of households that used bank credit
cent of households with income of $75,000 or more.
increased from 67.9 percent in 2015 to 72.5 percent
» Differences by race and ethnicity were also large
in 2019. The share of households that used nonbank
and were present at all income levels (see Figure
credit declined from 8.1 percent in 2015 and 7.5 percent
ES.7). For example, in 2019, even among households
in 2017 to 4.8 percent in 2019.22 The decline in nonbank
with income of $75,000 or more, about 80 percent
credit use between 2017 and 2019 remained large and
of Black and Hispanic households used bank credit,
statistically significant even after changes in income
whereas about 90 percent of White households
and other characteristics of U.S. households were
did so.
accounted for. The increase in bank credit use and the
Figure ES.7 Bank Credit Use by Household Income Level and Race and Ethnicity, 2019 (Percent)
Less Than $15,000
$15,000 to $30,000
23.5
30.3
45.0
38.3
42.1
59.4
52.8
55.1
$30,000 to $50,000
73.0
69.2
70.7
$50,000 to $75,000
82.2
80.6
83.8
At Least $75,000
Black
Hispanic
91.3
White
Note: The sample size for American Indian or Alaska Native households is not large enough to disaggregate by these income categories.
Certain nonbank installment loans that may be used for short-term credit needs were not captured in the 2019 survey. Credit products that are used
primarily to finance large expenditures, such as mortgages, auto loans, and student loans, are beyond the scope of the 2019 survey.
21
See Appendix 2 for changes in the wording of some questions across survey years.
22
The estimates of nonbank credit use in 2017 and 2015 reported in this subsection differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how
nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
20
8 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
•
Use of bank and nonbank credit also varied by the
households were more likely to use nonbank cred-
metropolitan status of a household’s residence. In
it (6.3 percent), compared with urban households
2019, 64.6 percent of rural households used bank
(4.9 percent) and suburban households (4.1 percent).
credit, compared with 69.2 percent of urban households and 77.3 percent of suburban households. In
addition to being less likely to use bank credit, rural
» When region is paired with metropolitan status,
the rural South stands out, where only 55.4 percent
of households used bank credit.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 9
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
2. About the Survey
Background
The first survey was conducted in January 2009, and sub-
Accounts at federally insured depository institutions are
sequent surveys were conducted in June 2011, June 2013,
covered by deposit insurance and other consumer pro-
June 2015, June 2017, and June 2019.24 Results from these
tections. Ownership of an account at a federally insured
surveys are available on economicinclusion.gov, which
depository institution provides households with a safe
also provides the ability to query and download the data.
place to keep deposits and to save for emergency and
long-term needs, and it facilitates households’ finan-
This report presents the results of the 2019 FDIC Survey
cial transactions. Having a bank account and a banking
of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services. The
relationship can also facilitate households’ access to
survey collected responses from 32,904 households. See
responsible, affordable credit, and such access can help
Appendix 1 (FDIC Technical Notes) for additional details.
households build their credit history.
Where appropriate, the report discusses trends in survey
results over time.
Despite these benefits, some households—referred to in
this report as “unbanked”—do not have an account at a
What’s New
federally insured depository institution. Other house-
In the 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and
holds have an account but also use nonbank financial
Financial Services, nonresponse to individual survey
products or services. Households that go outside the
questions (i.e., item nonresponse) was addressed through
banking system to meet their financial needs present
imputation, consistent with the Census Bureau’s treat-
banks with an opportunity to expand access to their
ment of missing values in the CPS.25 For a given ques-
products and services.
tion, item nonresponse occurred when a household
refused to answer the question, responded “don’t know,”
Economic inclusion supports the FDIC’s mission of main-
or dropped out of the survey before the question was
taining public confidence in the U.S. financial system.
administered (i.e., the household broke off). For nearly
The FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial
all missing values in the 2019 FDIC Survey of Household
Services is one contribution to this end. Conducted bien-
Use of Banking and Financial Services, the Census Bureau
nially and partly in response to a statutory mandate, the
implemented “hot deck” allocation, replacing a miss-
survey collects information on bank account ownership,
ing value for a particular question with a response to
use of prepaid cards and nonbank financial transaction
the same question provided by a household with similar
services, and use of bank and nonbank credit.
characteristics. Imputing missing values can help correct
23
estimation bias due to item nonresponse. See Appendix 1
The FDIC conducts the household survey in partnership
for additional details.
with the U.S. Census Bureau. Specifically, the FDIC sponsors a survey data collection that is a supplement to the
In addition, racial and ethnic categories were revised to
Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS).
be consistent with U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) standards for the classification of race and ethnicity and with CPS tabulations of race and ethnicity.26
Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–173) calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys
“on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account
or other type of transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution [‘unbanked’] into the conventional finance system.” Section 7
further instructs the FDIC to consider several factors when conducting the surveys, including estimating the size and worth of the unbanked market in the
United States and identifying the primary issues that prevent unbanked individuals from establishing conventional accounts.
24
Before 2019, the survey was named FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. The new survey name describes the content of the
survey, which asks a nationally representative sample of U.S. households about their use of banking and financial services.
25
In previous survey years, missing values were not imputed. See previous survey reports for information on how nonresponse was handled in those
reports.
26
For the OMB standards for the classification of race and ethnicity, see Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity, Federal Register 62, No. 210 (October 30, 1997), 58782-58790, govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf. For information on CPS
tabulations of race and ethnicity, see bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm.
23
10 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Specifically, the analysis in this report uses the following
with their most recent bank and on their perceptions of
classification of race and ethnicity:
how clearly banks in general communicate account fees.
•
•
Banked households were asked alternative versions of
Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race
the two questions, having to do with their satisfaction
Black or African American alone, not Hispanic or
with their primary bank and with their perceptions of
Latino
•
•
how clearly their bank communicates account fees.
Asian alone, not Hispanic or Latino
American Indian or Alaska Native alone, not Hispanic
or Latino
•
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, not
Hispanic or Latino
•
•
Second, to complement existing questions on the use of
nonbank money orders, check cashing, and international remittances in the past 12 months, the 2019 survey
added questions that asked all households about their
use of two other nonbank financial transaction ser-
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
vices in the past 12 months: bill payment services (such
as Western Union and MoneyGram) and peer-to-peer
Two or More Races, not Hispanic or Latino
or person-to-person (P2P) payment services (such as
Finally, a number of changes were made to the 2019 survey instrument, details of which are provided in Appendix 2. The notable additions to the survey instrument,
summarized below, fall into two main areas.
PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App). Households that used
nonbank money orders, check cashing, bill payment services, or international remittances in the past 12 months
were asked new, follow-up questions on whether they
used these services often, sometimes, or rarely. House-
First, to complement existing questions on reasons for
not having a bank account, the 2019 survey included
new questions on unbanked households’ satisfaction
holds that used nonbank money orders often or sometimes were asked a new, follow-up question on whether
they used the money orders to pay bills.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 11
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
3. Bank Account Ownership: Unbanked Households
National Unbanked Rate
An estimated 5.4 percent of U.S. households were
Figure 3.1 National Estimates, Household Unbanked
Rate by Year (Percent)
“unbanked” in 2019, meaning that no one in the household had a checking or savings account at a bank or credit
union (i.e., bank). This proportion represents approxi-
7.6
8.2
7.7
7.0
mately 7.1 million U.S. households. Conversely, 94.6 per-
6.5
5.4
cent of U.S. households were “banked” in 2019, meaning
that at least one member of the household had a checking
or savings account. This proportion represents approximately 124.2 million U.S. households.
The proportion of U.S. households that were unbanked
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
(i.e., the unbanked rate) in 2019—5.4 percent—was the
lowest since the survey began in 2009, as shown in
Unbanked Rates by Household Characteristics
Figure 3.1. Between 2017 and 2019, the unbanked rate fell
Consistent with the results of previous surveys, in 2019
by 1.1 percentage points, corresponding to an increase
unbanked rates varied considerably across the U.S. pop-
of approximately 1.5 million banked households.27 About
ulation.29 For example, as shown in Table 3.1, unbanked
half of the decline in the unbanked rate between 2017 and
rates were higher among lower-income households,
2019 was associated with improvements in the socioeco-
less-educated households, Black households, Hispanic
nomic circumstances of U.S. households over this period.
households, American Indian or Alaska Native house-
However, even after these improvements were accounted
holds, working-age disabled households, and households
for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate
with volatile income.30
across years was statistically significant.28
For most segments of the population, unbanked rates
Between 2011, when the unbanked rate peaked at 8.2 per-
in 2019 were lower than or similar to unbanked rates in
cent, and 2019, the unbanked rate fell by 2.8 percentage
recent years, as illustrated in Table 3.1. Recent declines
points, corresponding to an increase of approximately
have been particularly sharp for Black and Hispanic
3.7 million banked households. About two-thirds of the
households. Specifically, 13.8 percent of Black house-
decline in the unbanked rate between 2011 and 2019 was
holds were unbanked in 2019, down from 16.8 percent in
associated with improvements in the socioeconomic cir-
2017 and 18.5 percent in 2015. Among Hispanic house-
cumstances of U.S. households over this period.
holds, 12.2 percent were unbanked in 2019, down from
14.4 percent in 2017 and 16.3 percent in 2015.31 Despite the
All differences discussed in the text are statistically significant at the 10 percent level unless noted otherwise. In other words, there is a 10 percent or
lower probability that the difference observed in the survey is due to chance.
28
A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes between 2017 and 2019 in the distribution of households across the householdlevel characteristics shown in Table 3.4. About half of the difference in the unbanked rate between 2017 and 2019 was associated with changes in the
socioeconomic characteristics of households (annual income level, monthly income volatility, employment status, homeownership status, and educational
attainment) over this period. Adding controls for the remaining demographic characteristics shown in Table 3.4 had little effect on the remainder of the
difference in the unbanked rate.
29
For person-level characteristics, such as race, age, and education, the characteristics of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., the householder) are used to
represent the household. For convenience, abbreviated language is used in referring to certain household characteristics. For example, the term “Hispanic
household” refers to a household for which the householder identifies as Hispanic or Latino regardless of race, and the term “Black household” refers to a
household for which the householder identifies as Black or African American alone and not Hispanic or Latino. The term “working-age disabled household”
refers to a household for which the householder has a disability and is between the ages of 25 and 64. See Appendix 1 for additional details.
30
For monthly income volatility, all households were asked whether their income over the past 12 months was about the same each month, varied
somewhat from month to month, or varied a lot from month to month. The term “volatile income” refers to a household with income that varied somewhat
or a lot from month to month.
31
About 70 percent of the decline in the unbanked rate for Black households and about 60 percent of the decline in the unbanked rate for Hispanic
households between 2015 and 2019 were associated with changes in income and the other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4. After these changes
were accounted for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate for Black households was no longer statistically significant, while the remainder of
the decline in the unbanked rate for Hispanic households was statistically significant.
27
12 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 3.1 Unbanked Rates by Selected Household Characteristics and Year
For All Households
2015
(Percent)
2017
(Percent)
2019
(Percent)
Difference
(2019–2017)
7.0
6.5
5.4
-1.1*
Less Than $15,000
25.6
25.7
23.3
-2.5*
$15,000 to $30,000
11.8
12.3
10.4
-1.8*
$30,000 to $50,000
5.0
5.1
4.6
-0.5
$50,000 to $75,000
1.6
1.5
1.7
0.3
At Least $75,000
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.0
No High School Diploma
23.2
22.4
21.4
-1.0
High School Diploma
9.7
9.4
8.1
-1.4*
Some College
5.5
5.1
4.3
-0.9*
College Degree
1.1
1.3
0.8
-0.5*
15 to 24 Years
13.1
10.0
8.8
-1.2
25 to 34 Years
10.6
8.5
6.9
-1.6*
35 to 44 Years
8.9
7.8
6.3
-1.5*
45 to 54 Years
6.7
6.9
5.1
-1.8*
55 to 64 Years
5.8
5.9
5.5
-0.5
65 Years or More
3.1
3.9
3.3
-0.6*
Black
18.5
16.8
13.8
-2.9*
Hispanic
16.3
14.4
12.2
-2.2*
Asian
3.9
2.6
1.7
-1.0
American Indian or Alaska Native
15.3
18.0
16.3
-1.7
Characteristics
All
Family Income
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
10.3
2.8
NA
NA
White
3.1
3.0
2.5
-0.6*
Two or More Races
7.9
8.5
4.9
-3.5*
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
17.6
18.1
16.2
-1.9
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
6.5
5.7
4.5
-1.1*
Income Was About the Same Each Month
5.7
5.6
4.9
-0.8*
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
8.7
6.8
6.4
-0.4
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
12.9
13.2
10.7
-2.5
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Notes: Asterisk indicates differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. NA indicates that the sample size is
too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Table A.2 for estimates by other household characteristics and for selected
confidence intervals.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 13
improvements in unbanked rates for Black and Hispanic
Unbanked rates in 2019 varied widely across states, as
households, unbanked rates in 2019 for these households
illustrated in Figure 3.2. Reflecting the regional variation
remained substantially above the unbanked rate for
described above and similar to estimates from previ-
White households (2.5 percent).
ous years, unbanked rates were generally higher among
states in the South. Unbanked rates ranged from 0.5 per-
The 2017 report noted that, while unbanked rates
cent (New Hampshire) to 12.8 percent (Mississippi). Some
declined for Black and Hispanic households as economic
states saw large decreases in unbanked rates in recent
conditions improved between 2011 and 2017, unbanked
years. For example, the unbanked rate in North Carolina
rates for other populations with a large percentage of
was 3.4 percent in 2019, down from 5.8 percent in 2017
unbanked households did not decline at a similar pace.32
and 7.7 percent in 2015, and the unbanked rate in West
For example, the unbanked rate for working-age disabled
Virginia was 4.7 percent in 2019, down from 7.8 percent
households was roughly constant between 2011 and 2017:
in 2017 and 8.0 percent in 2015. (See Appendix Tables A.3
18.9 percent in 2011, 18.4 percent in 2013, 17.6 percent in
and A.4 for detailed estimates by state and metropol-
2015, and 18.1 percent in 2017. In 2019, while still much
itan statistical area [MSA] and for selected confidence
higher than the unbanked rate for working-age nondis-
intervals.)35
abled households (4.5 percent), the unbanked rate for
working-age disabled households (16.2 percent) declined
Unbanked rates also varied by the metropolitan status
to its lowest level since 2011.33
of a household’s residence. In 2019, 8.1 percent of urban
households were unbanked, compared with 6.2 percent
Unbanked Rates by Geography
of rural households and 3.7 percent of suburban house-
Regional variation in unbanked rates was similar in
holds.36 These unbanked rates were lower than in 2017.
2019 to previous years, with unbanked rates highest in
(See Appendix Table A.2 for unbanked rates by metropol-
the South. The unbanked rate in the South in 2019 was
itan status and for selected confidence intervals.)
6.2 percent, compared with 5.0 percent in the Midwest, 4.9 percent in the West, and 4.7 percent in the
Patterns in unbanked rates by metropolitan status
Northeast.34
differed across regions. As shown in Figure 3.3, for the
Northeast and Midwest, unbanked rates among urban
However, differences in unbanked rates between the
households in 2019 were higher than rates among subur-
South and the other regions have narrowed in recent
ban and rural households. For the South, unbanked rates
years. In 2015, the unbanked rate in the South (8.7 per-
among urban and rural households were higher than the
cent) was 2.8 percentage points higher than the
rate among suburban households.37 Finally, for the West,
combined unbanked rate of the other three regions
unbanked rates were similar across urban, suburban, and
(6.0 percent). In 2019, the unbanked rate in the South
rural households.
(6.2 percent) was 1.4 percentage points higher than the
combined unbanked rate of the other three regions
(4.8 percent)—half the gap in unbanked rates from 2015.
(See Appendix Table A.2 for unbanked rates by region and
for selected confidence intervals.)
See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (October 2018), economicinclusion.gov/
downloads/2017_FDIC_Unbanked_HH_Survey_Report.pdf.
33
About half of the decline in the unbanked rate for working-age disabled households between 2011 and 2019 was associated with changes in income and
the other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4 (except for monthly income volatility, which was not available for 2011). After these changes were
accounted for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate for working-age disabled households was no longer statistically significant.
34
Differences in unbanked rates between the South and each of the other three regions in 2019 were associated primarily with differences in income and
other characteristics of U.S. households. These geographical differences were no longer statistically significant after differences in the other household
characteristics shown in Table 3.4 were accounted for.
35
See economicinclusion.gov/five-year for five-year estimates of unbanked rates at the state and MSA levels and for confidence intervals.
36
For the purposes of this report, a household is classified as urban if the household resides in a principal city of a metropolitan area, suburban if the
household resides in a metropolitan area but not in a principal city, and rural if the household does not reside in a metropolitan area. In 2019, 29.2 percent
of households were classified as urban, 43.6 percent as suburban, and 13.0 percent as rural. (See Table 3.4.) For the remaining 14.2 percent of households,
the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, and rural status to maintain confidentiality, though most of these households were either
urban or suburban.
37
The difference in unbanked rates between urban and suburban households in the South was no longer statistically significant after differences in the
other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4 were accounted for.
32
14 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure 3.2 Unbanked Rates by State, 2019 (Percent)
WA
ND
MT
OR
MN
ID
WY
MI
IA
NE
NV
ME
WI
SD
IL
UT
CO
KS
CA
OK
NM
AZ
MO
PA
WV
KY
TN
AR
MS
TX
NY
OH
IN
AL
VT
NH
MA
MD
VA
CT
NJ
RI
DE
DC
NC
SC
GA
Less Than 3.6
LA
3.6 to 4.4
AK
FL
4.4 to 5.6
5.6 to 7.6
At Least 7.6
HI
Figure 3.3 Unbanked Rates by Metropolitan Status and Region, 2019 (Percent)
11.7
10.3
9.1
8.0
6.0
4.8
3.8
2.7
5.1
4.4
2.8
1.8
Northeast
Midwest
Urban
South
Suburban
West
Rural
Note: This figure does not display unbanked rates for households where—to maintain confidentiality—the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, and rural
status (14.2 percent of all households).
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 15
Previous and Recent Bank Account Ownership
Interest in Having a Bank Account
As discussed in previous reports, bank account owner-
As shown in Figure 3.4, among unbanked households
ship is not static. Table 3.2 shows that among unbanked
in 2019, more than half (56.2 percent) were not at all
households in 2019, half (50.4 percent) had had a bank
interested in having a bank account, while 24.8 per-
account at some point in the past (i.e., had previously
cent were very or somewhat interested. These estimates
been banked), slightly higher than in previous years.
are qualitatively similar to those from the 2017 survey,
though changes in the wording of the survey question do
As further evidence of the dynamic nature of bank
not allow for direct comparisons.38
account ownership, Table 3.3 segments unbanked
households by whether they had a bank account in the
Interest in having a bank account was higher among
past 12 months. Among unbanked households in 2019,
certain segments of the unbanked population. For exam-
10.4 percent had a bank account at some point in the past
ple, as displayed in Figure 3.4, 31.7 percent of unbanked
12 months (i.e., were recently unbanked), and 89.6 per-
households that had previously been banked were very
cent did not have an account at any point in the past
or somewhat interested in having an account, compared
12 months (i.e., were longer-term unbanked). These per-
with 17.9 percent of unbanked households that had never
centages are similar to those from previous years.
been banked. Within unbanked households that had previously been banked, interest in having a bank account
The information in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 together reveals
was higher among households with more recent account
that among unbanked households in 2019, 10.4 percent
ownership. Among unbanked households that last had an
last had a bank account in the past 12 months, 40.0 per-
account in the past 12 months, 48.8 percent were very or
cent last had an account more than 12 months ago, and
somewhat interested in having an account, higher than
49.6 percent never had an account.
the proportion among unbanked households that last had
Table 3.2 Previous Bank Account Ownership of Unbanked
Households by Year
For Unbanked Households, Row Percent
an account more than 12 months ago (27.2 percent).
Interest in having a bank account was also higher among
Black unbanked households (30.5 percent were very or
Year
Previously Banked
(Percent)
Never Banked
(Percent)
2015
47.3
52.7
very or somewhat interested in having an account). (See
2017
47.0
53.0
Appendix Table A.6 for detailed estimates of interest in
2019
50.4
49.6
having a bank account by household characteristics.)
Table 3.3 Recent Bank Account Ownership of Unbanked
Households by Year
For Unbanked Households, Row Percent
Year
Recently Unbanked
(Percent)
Longer-Term
Unbanked
(Percent)
2015
11.0
89.0
2017
9.7
90.3
2019
10.4
89.6
Notes: Recently unbanked households last had a bank account
in the past 12 months. Longer-term unbanked households
either last had an account more than 12 months ago or never
had an account.
somewhat interested in having an account), compared
with White unbanked households (22.3 percent were
Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account
As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked unbanked
households about their reasons for not having a bank
account. Patterns are similar to those reported in previous years.39
As illustrated in Figure 3.5, about half of unbanked
households (48.9 percent) cited “Don’t have enough
money to meet minimum balance requirements” as a
reason for not having an account—the most cited reason.
This reason was also the most cited main reason for not
having an account (29.0 percent).
Other commonly cited reasons, each cited by approximately one-third of unbanked households, were “Don’t
The 2019 survey asked unbanked households how interested they were in having a bank account (with no specific time horizon), while the 2013–2017
surveys asked unbanked households how likely they were to open a bank account in the next 12 months. In 2017, 58.7 percent of unbanked households
were not at all likely, 16.3 percent were not very likely, 15.6 percent were somewhat likely, and 9.5 percent were very likely to open an account in the next 12
months.
39
For the 2019 survey, revisions were made to three of the response options on reasons for not having an account. See Appendix 2 for details.
38
16 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure 3.4 Interest in Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, by Previous Bank Account Ownership,
2019 (Percent)
All
7.8
Previously
Banked
17.0
11.1
Never
Banked 4.5
18.9
56.2
20.6
13.4
20.1
48.2
17.8
Very Interested
64.4
Somewhat Interested
Not Very Interested
Not at All Interested
Figure 3.5 Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, 2019 (Percent)
Don't Have Enough Money to Meet
Minimum Balance Requirements
48.9
29.0
Don't Trust Banks
36.3
16.1
Avoiding a Bank Gives More Privacy
36.0
7.1
Bank Account Fees Are Too High
34.2
7.3
Bank Account Fees Are Too Unpredictable
31.3
1.6
Personal Identification, Credit, or
Former Bank Account Problems
20.5
8.0
Banks Do Not Offer Needed Products and Services
19.6
1.9
Bank Locations Are Inconvenient
14.1
2.2
Bank Hours Are Inconvenient
2.4
13.0
Other Reason
13.9
17.8
10.4
10.4
Did Not Select a Reason
Cited
Main
trust banks,” “Avoiding a bank gives more privacy,”
A higher proportion of unbanked households that had
“Bank account fees are too high,” and “Bank account
previously been banked cited “Bank account fees are too
fees are too unpredictable.” Among these reasons,
unpredictable” (34.8 percent), compared with unbanked
“Don’t trust banks” was cited as a main reason most
households that had never been banked (27.8 percent).
often (16.1 percent—the second-most cited main reason
overall).
A higher proportion of unbanked households that were
very or somewhat interested in having an account cited
Reasons for not having an account were generally sim-
“Personal identification, credit, or former bank account
ilar across unbanked households in 2019, regardless of
problems” (26.7 percent), compared with unbanked
whether the household had previously been banked or
households that were not very or not at all interested in
was interested in having an account. A few exceptions are
having an account (18.5 percent). In addition, a smaller
worth noting.
proportion of unbanked households that were very or
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 17
somewhat interested in having an account cited “Don’t
analysis below focuses on unbanked households that had
trust banks” (24.6 percent), compared with unbanked
previously been banked.
households that were not very or not at all interested
in having an account (40.1 percent). Similarly, a smaller
As shown in Figure 3.6, among unbanked households
proportion of unbanked households that were very or
that had previously been banked, 24.3 percent were very
somewhat interested in having an account cited “Avoid-
satisfied with their most recent bank, 30.8 percent some-
ing a bank gives more privacy” (25.5 percent), compared
what satisfied, 14.4 percent not very satisfied, 22.8 per-
with unbanked households that were not very or not at
cent not satisfied at all, and 7.7 percent did not know.41
all interested in having an account (39.5 percent). (See
Appendix Tables A.7–A.10 for cited and main reasons for
Satisfaction with one’s most recent bank varied accord-
not having an account by previous bank account owner-
ing to how recently the household had a bank account.
ship and interest in having an account.)
Among unbanked households that last had an account
in the past 12 months, 67.7 percent were very or some-
Satisfaction With Most Recent Bank and Clarity of Banks’
Communications About Account Fees
what satisfied with their most recent bank, higher than
To complement existing questions on reasons for not
had an account more than 12 months ago (51.8 percent).
having a bank account, the 2019 survey included new
This finding is consistent with higher interest in hav-
questions on unbanked households’ satisfaction with
ing a bank account among households with more recent
their most recent bank and on their perceptions of how
account ownership, as presented above.42
clearly banks in general communicate account fees.
40
the proportion among unbanked households that last
The
Figure 3.6 Satisfaction With Most Recent Bank, Among Unbanked Households That Had Previously Been Banked, by
Recent Bank Account Ownership, 2019 (Percent)
All
24.3
Last Had Bank
Account in Past
12 Months
Last Had Bank
Account More Than
12 Months Ago
30.8
14.4
29.3
38.5
23.0
Very Satisfied
22.8
14.1
28.9
14.5
Somewhat Satisfied
Not Very Satisfied
7.7
24.5
Not Satisfied at All
2.0
16.1
9.1
Don't Know
Figure 3.7 Perceptions of Clarity of Banks’ Communications About Account Fees, Among Unbanked Households That
Had Previously Been Banked, by Recent Bank Account Ownership, 2019 (Percent)
All
17.4
Last Had Bank
Account in Past
12 Months
Last Had Bank
Account More Than
12 Months Ago
29.4
27.0
14.9
Very Clearly
20.8
31.5
28.9
Somewhat Clearly
22.4
21.7
20.5
Not Very Clearly
10.0
15.6
24.2
Not Clearly at All
4.2
11.5
Don't Know
Banked households were asked alternative versions of the two questions, having to do with their satisfaction with their primary bank and with their
perceptions of how clearly their bank communicates account fees. Findings are discussed in section 4.
41
“Don’t know” was not one of the four administered response options to the questions on satisfaction and clarity. Some households did not choose one of
the four administered response options and instead volunteered “don’t know.” See Appendix 1 for details.
42
See Appendix Table A.11 for estimates of unbanked households’ satisfaction with their most recent bank by household characteristics.
40
18 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Unbanked households’ interest in having a bank account
Perceptions of the clarity of banks’ communications
was associated with differences in their satisfaction with
about account fees varied according to how recently the
their most recent bank. Among unbanked households that
household had a bank account. Among unbanked house-
were very or somewhat satisfied with their most recent
holds that last had an account in the past 12 months,
bank, 38.6 percent were very or somewhat interested in
58.5 percent thought banks communicated account fees
having a bank account. In contrast, among unbanked
very or somewhat clearly, higher than the proportion
households that were not very satisfied or not satisfied at
among unbanked households that last had an account
all with their most recent bank, 20.9 percent were very or
more than 12 months ago (43.8 percent).43
somewhat interested in having a bank account.
Unbanked households’ interest in having a bank account
As shown in Figure 3.7, among unbanked households
that had previously been banked, 17.4 percent thought
banks in general communicated account fees very clearly,
29.4 percent somewhat clearly, 20.8 percent not very
clearly, 22.4 percent not clearly at all, and 10.0 percent did
not know.
was associated with differences in their perceptions
of the clarity of banks’ communications about account
fees. Among unbanked households that thought banks
communicated account fees very or somewhat clearly,
38.7 percent were very or somewhat interested in having
a bank account. In contrast, among unbanked households
that thought banks communicated account fees not very
clearly or not clearly at all, 22.2 percent were very or
somewhat interested in having a bank account.
Table 3.4 Distribution of Households by Characteristics and Year
For All Households, Column Percent
Characteristics
2015
2017
2019
Less Than $15,000
14.1
12.4
10.7
$15,000 to $30,000
16.8
15.3
14.4
$30,000 to $50,000
19.9
19.8
18.8
$50,000 to $75,000
18.0
18.4
18.2
At Least $75,000
31.2
34.1
37.9
No High School Diploma
10.8
9.6
8.7
High School Diploma
26.1
25.8
24.9
Some College
29.4
28.9
28.3
College Degree
33.7
35.7
38.1
Family Income (Percent)
Education (Percent)
Age Group (Percent)
15 to 24 Years
5.2
5.1
4.8
25 to 34 Years
16.5
16.2
16.3
35 to 44 Years
17.0
16.7
17.0
45 to 54 Years
18.6
18.0
17.0
55 to 64 Years
18.8
18.9
18.6
65 Years or More
23.9
25.0
26.2
Black
12.7
12.8
12.7
Hispanic
13.5
13.8
14.0
Asian
4.7
5.0
5.3
American Indian or Alaska Native
0.7
0.8
0.7
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0.2
0.3
0.2
Race/Ethnicity (Percent)
See Appendix Table A.12 for estimates of unbanked households’ perceptions of the clarity of banks’ communications about account fees by household
characteristics.
43
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 19
Table 3.4 Distribution of Households by Characteristics and Year (continued)
For All Households, Column Percent
Characteristics
2015
2017
2019
White
67.0
66.2
65.6
Two or More Races
1.2
1.2
1.3
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
9.0
8.7
8.1
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
61.9
61.1
60.9
Not Applicable (Not Aged 25 to 64)
29.1
30.2
31.0
Disability Status (Percent)
Monthly Income Volatility (Percent)
Income Was About the Same Each Month
71.8
71.3
77.7
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
16.3
16.2
18.3
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
4.5
3.9
4.1
Unknown
7.3
8.7
61.3
61.4
Employment Status (Percent)
Employed
62.1
Unemployed
3.0
2.7
2.2
Not in Labor Force
35.7
35.9
35.7
Homeowner
63.3
63.6
64.5
Non-Homeowner
36.7
36.4
35.5
Married Couple
46.7
47.3
46.5
Unmarried Female-Headed Family
12.5
11.7
11.6
Unmarried Male-Headed Family
4.8
5.1
5.0
Female Individual
18.4
18.8
19.0
Male Individual
17.3
16.8
17.7
Other
0.2
0.3
0.2
Homeownership (Percent)
Household Type (Percent)
Citizenship and Place of Birth (Percent)
U.S.-Born
85.2
85.3
85.1
Foreign-Born Citizen
7.6
7.8
8.6
Foreign-Born Noncitizen
7.2
6.9
6.3
Urban
28.6
29.8
29.2
Suburban
42.8
42.8
43.6
Rural
14.0
13.4
13.0
Not Identified
14.5
14.0
14.2
Northeast
17.8
17.6
17.2
Midwest
21.7
21.4
21.6
South
37.9
38.2
38.3
West
22.6
22.8
22.9
Metropolitan Status (Percent)
Geographic Region (Percent)
Note: Missing values for monthly income volatility in 2019 were imputed; see Appendix 1 for details.
20 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
4. Bank Account Ownership: Banked Households
Primary Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts
The changes between 2015 and 2019 described above
Knowing how households access their bank accounts can
occurred broadly across different segments of the pop-
help inform discussions about how best to serve differ-
ulation. These trends are consistent with households’
ent groups of consumers. As in previous years, the 2019
switching from online banking to mobile banking as a
survey asked banked households about the primary (i.e.,
primary method to access their bank accounts.
most common) method they used to access their accounts
in the past 12 months: visiting a bank teller, using an
Table 4.2 shows changes between 2017 and 2019 in bank
ATM or bank kiosk, calling the bank (i.e., telephone
tellers, online banking, and mobile banking as the pri-
banking), using a mobile phone including an app (i.e.,
mary method of account access, by selected household
mobile banking), using a computer or tablet (i.e., online
characteristics. For example, among younger banked
banking), or using some other method (i.e., other).44
households, mobile banking as the primary method
nearly doubled between 2017 and 2019: in 2019, nearly
Table 4.1 shows the primary methods that banked
two-thirds of these households used mobile banking
households used to access their accounts.45 Use of mobile
as their primary method. Even groups with lower use of
banking continued to increase sharply (from 9.5 percent
mobile banking, such as older, working-age disabled,
in 2015 and 15.6 percent in 2017 to 34.0 percent in 2019),
and rural households, exhibited large increases in use
overtaking online banking as the most prevalent primary
of mobile banking as the primary method. For exam-
method of accessing an account.
ple, among rural households, 24.3 percent used mobile
banking as the primary method in 2019, compared with
Use of online banking as a primary method decreased
11.2 percent in 2017.
substantially (from 36.9 percent in 2015 and 36.0 percent
in 2017 to 22.8 percent in 2019), and use of bank tellers
As in prior surveys, use of bank tellers was the most
declined modestly. Despite these declines, use of online
prevalent primary method of account access among low-
banking and of bank tellers remained prevalent among
er-income households, less-educated households, older
banked households in 2019. Much as in previous years,
households, and rural households. For example, 39.6 per-
use of an ATM or bank kiosk remained prevalent in 2019,
cent of households without a high school diploma and
with about one in five banked households using this
39.2 percent of households aged 65 or older used bank
method as the primary method.
tellers as their primary method of account access in 2019.
Table 4.1 Primary Method Used to Access Bank Account by Year
For Banked Households That Accessed Their Account in the Past 12 Months, Row Percent
Year
Bank Teller
(Percent)
ATM/Kiosk
(Percent)
Telephone
Banking
(Percent)
Online Banking
(Percent)
2015
28.2
21.0
3.0
2017
24.3
19.9
2.9
2019
21.0
19.5
2.4
Mobile Banking
(Percent)
Other
(Percent)
36.9
9.5
0.9
36.0
15.6
0.7
22.8
34.0
0.3
The primary method of account access does not necessarily reflect how often a household uses that method. For example, a household that uses online
banking as its primary method of account access may use online banking once a month (if it does not need to access its account very often) or may use
online banking each day.
45
Estimated changes between 2017 and 2019 in the primary method used to access an account may partly reflect changes in the wording of the survey
questions and in the structure of the 2019 survey instrument. See Appendix 2 for details.
44
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 21
Table 4.2 Bank Tellers, Online Banking, and Mobile Banking as Primary Method of Account Access by Selected
Household Characteristics and Year
For Banked Households That Accessed Their Account in the Past 12 Months
Bank Teller
Characteristics
All
2017
2019
(Percent) (Percent)
Online Banking
Mobile Banking
Difference
Difference
Difference
2017
2019
2017
2019
(2019–
(2019–
(2019–
(Percent) (Percent)
(Percent) (Percent)
2017)
2017)
2017)
24.3
21.0
-3.4*
36.0
22.8
-13.1*
15.6
34.0
18.4*
Less Than $15,000
38.8
35.9
-2.9*
$15,000 to $30,000
38.0
31.7
-6.4*
17.2
9.9
-7.3*
11.2
23.5
12.3*
19.4
12.7
-6.8*
11.7
25.9
14.2*
$30,000 to $50,000
28.9
24.7
-4.1*
27.7
17.1
-10.5*
16.0
33.2
17.2*
$50,000 to $75,000
23.3
20.3
-3.0*
38.0
21.2
-16.8*
15.8
35.9
20.1*
At Least $75,000
13.3
13.1
-0.3
50.6
32.1
-18.5*
17.9
38.1
20.2*
No High School Diploma
46.2
39.6
-6.7*
10.8
5.8
-5.1*
8.2
19.2
11.0*
High School Diploma
33.8
30.3
-3.5*
24.7
14.6
-10.1*
11.6
27.3
15.7*
Some College
22.9
20.3
-2.6*
35.0
20.6
-14.4*
17.5
36.5
19.0*
College Degree
14.8
12.9
-2.0*
49.1
32.1
-17.0*
18.2
38.6
20.3*
15 to 24 Years
13.3
10.2
-3.0*
26.2
7.2
-18.9*
36.1
62.9
26.8*
25 to 34 Years
10.6
8.0
-2.6*
35.7
14.4
-21.4*
35.0
61.7
26.7*
35 to 44 Years
13.6
10.6
-3.0*
42.4
20.1
-22.3*
22.6
49.8
27.2*
45 to 54 Years
18.7
15.5
-3.2*
42.6
26.6
-16.0*
13.2
36.3
23.1*
55 to 64 Years
26.1
24.3
-1.8*
39.0
29.3
-9.7*
7.0
21.3
14.3*
65 Years or More
45.1
39.2
-5.9*
26.9
25.7
-1.2*
2.7
8.3
5.7*
Black
24.9
20.6
-4.4*
24.0
12.0
-12.0*
17.2
37.2
20.0*
Hispanic
25.0
20.9
-4.1*
25.7
11.1
-14.6*
19.2
41.3
22.1*
Asian
19.6
18.4
-1.2
46.3
25.7
-20.6*
15.4
39.3
24.0*
American Indian or Alaska Native
30.2
23.2
-7.0
24.5
17.0
-7.5
15.1
30.5
15.4*
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
White
24.5
21.4
-3.2*
39.2
26.7
-12.5*
14.5
31.4
16.9*
Two or More Races
17.1
14.0
-3.0
33.5
24.1
-9.4*
26.6
45.5
18.9*
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
28.7
23.3
-5.4*
26.5
17.2
-9.4*
10.0
29.8
19.7*
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
16.3
13.9
-2.4*
41.6
23.5
-18.1*
19.8
42.9
23.1*
Income Was About the Same
Each Month
24.8
21.8
-3.0*
36.6
23.4
-13.2*
14.9
32.0
17.1*
Income Varied Somewhat From
Month to Month
20.8
17.5
-3.3*
35.2
20.6
-14.6*
19.6
40.8
21.2*
Income Varied a Lot From Month
to Month
24.9
21.5
-3.4
35.8
21.9
-14.0*
19.3
40.6
21.3*
Family Income
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
22 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 4.2 Bank Tellers, Online Banking, and Mobile Banking as Primary Method of Account Access by Selected
Household Characteristics and Year (continued)
For Banked Households That Accessed Their Account in the Past 12 Months
Bank Teller
Characteristics
2017
2019
(Percent) (Percent)
Online Banking
Mobile Banking
Difference
Difference
Difference
2017
2019
2017
2019
(2019–
(2019–
(2019–
(Percent) (Percent)
(Percent) (Percent)
2017)
2017)
2017)
Metropolitan Status
Urban
19.8
16.9
-2.9*
35.9
21.3
-14.6*
18.1
39.3
21.1*
Suburban
21.8
18.7
-3.1*
39.4
25.3
-14.1*
15.6
34.2
18.6*
Rural
37.8
33.4
-4.3*
27.4
18.5
-8.8*
11.2
24.3
13.1*
Not Identified
28.8
25.0
-3.8*
33.5
22.0
-11.5*
14.5
31.3
16.8*
Notes: Asterisk indicates differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. NA indicates that the sample size is too
small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Tables B.2–B.6 for estimates by other household characteristics and for selected
confidence intervals.
Bank Branch Visits
that visited a branch one to four times increased. (For
In addition to asking banked households how they access
estimates of bank branch visits among banked house-
their accounts, the 2017 and 2019 surveys asked house-
holds by household characteristics and year, see Appen-
holds whether they spoke with a teller or other employee
dix Tables B.7–B.10.)
in person at a bank branch (i.e., visited a bank branch) in
the past 12 months, and if so, how many times.46
Table 4.3 shows bank branch visits among banked households by selected household characteristics. In 2019 (as
Some households may visit a bank branch for activities
was also the case in 2017), some segments of the banked
other than accessing an account, such as resolving a
population were more likely than others to visit a bank
problem or asking about products or services. By mea-
branch and to visit ten or more times. Older households
suring the frequency of branch use, the questions on
and households with volatile income were more likely
visits to a bank branch complement the questions about
to visit a branch and to visit ten or more times. Black,
methods of accessing an account.
Hispanic, and Asian households were less likely to visit a
branch or to visit ten or more times. While less-educated
Figure 4.1 shows the frequency of bank branch visits
households were less likely to visit a branch overall,
among banked households in 2017 and 2019. In 2019,
83.0 percent of banked households visited a bank branch
in the past 12 months, down slightly from 86.0 percent in
2017, and overall, bank branch visits became somewhat
Figure 4.1 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked
Households, by Year (Percent)
less frequent between 2017 and 2019. The share of banked
30.8
households visiting a branch ten or more times declined
from 35.4 percent in 2017 to 28.4 percent in 2019, whereas the share of banked households visiting a branch
one to four times increased from 30.8 percent in 2017 to
14.0
36.3
35.4
28.4
18.2 18.3
17.0
36.3 percent in 2019.47
0 Times
Across segments of the banked population, the changes in branch visits reflected the overall trends just
described: the proportion of banked households that visited a branch ten or more times fell, while the proportion
1 to 4
Times
2017
5 to 9
Times
10 or More
Times
2019
Note: For 2017, not shown are households that visited a branch but with unknown
frequency (1.6 percent of banked households).
Households that spoke with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch were asked whether they did so one to four times in the past 12 months,
five to nine times in the past 12 months, or ten or more times in the past 12 months.
47
In 2019, among unbanked households, 16.4 percent visited a bank branch in the past 12 months: 8.5 percent visited a branch one to four times, 2.4 percent
visited five to nine times, and 5.5 percent visited ten or more times. Approximately two-thirds of the unbanked households that visited a branch did not
have a bank account at any time in the past 12 months. (See Appendix Table B.12 for detailed estimates of bank branch visits among unbanked households
by previous bank account ownership and household characteristics.)
46
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 23
those that did visit a branch were more likely to visit ten
visited a branch, and about four in ten rural households
or more times. (See Appendix Table B.11 for bank branch
visited ten or more times, as shown in Figure 4.2.
visits among banked households that visited a branch.)
Table 4.4 shows bank branch visits in 2019 among
Bank branch visits varied substantially across metropol-
banked households by the primary method used to
itan status. In 2019, nearly nine in ten rural households
access an account. Nearly 60 percent of banked house-
Table 4.3 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked Households, by Selected Household Characteristics, 2019
For Banked Households, Row Percent
0 Times
(Percent)
1 to 4 Times
(Percent)
5 to 9 Times
(Percent)
10 or More Times
(Percent)
17.0
36.3
18.3
28.4
Less Than $15,000
24.7
32.3
15.0
27.9
$15,000 to $30,000
18.6
34.8
16.8
29.8
$30,000 to $50,000
17.2
35.9
18.1
28.9
$50,000 to $75,000
15.6
35.8
18.9
29.8
At Least $75,000
15.3
38.0
19.5
27.2
No High School Diploma
20.7
32.7
15.6
31.0
High School Diploma
18.4
33.4
16.3
31.9
Some College
15.9
36.4
18.0
29.7
College Degree
16.3
38.5
20.3
24.9
15 to 24 Years
18.5
41.8
16.7
23.0
25 to 34 Years
21.6
40.0
17.3
21.1
35 to 44 Years
20.1
38.8
17.8
23.3
45 to 54 Years
16.5
35.6
19.0
28.9
55 to 64 Years
13.5
34.6
19.2
32.6
65 Years or More
14.7
33.0
18.5
33.8
Black
21.4
40.3
17.0
21.3
Hispanic
21.4
37.9
16.4
24.3
Asian
22.9
40.8
16.2
20.1
American Indian or Alaska Native
19.4
30.8
15.5
34.3
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NA
NA
NA
NA
White
14.8
35.0
19.1
31.1
Two or More Races
21.2
35.4
17.1
26.3
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
18.5
32.5
18.0
30.9
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
17.7
37.7
18.4
26.2
Income Was About the Same Each Month
17.7
36.9
18.0
27.3
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
14.8
34.8
19.5
30.9
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
12.7
29.4
18.8
39.1
Characteristics
All
Family Income
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Notes: NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Tables B.7–B.10 for estimates by other
household characteristics.
24 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
holds that used bank tellers as their primary method
households that used mobile banking as their prima-
visited a branch ten or more times. Branch visits were
ry method visited a branch in the past 12 months, and
prevalent even among banked households that used
about one in five (18.8 percent) banked households that
online or mobile banking as their primary method of
used mobile banking as their primary method visited
account access. For example, 79.9 percent of banked
ten or more times.
Figure 4.2 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked Households, by Metropolitan Status, 2019 (Percent)
41.6
38.2
38.2
29.3
26.2
22.6
20.8
18.4
17.0
18.6
16.7
12.3
0 Times
1 to 4 Times
5 to 9 Times
Urban
Suburban
10 or More Times
Rural
Note: This figure does not display bank branch visits for banked households where—to maintain confidentiality—the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, or
rural status (14.3 percent of banked households).
Table 4.4 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked Households, by Selected Primary Methods of Account Access, 2019
For Banked Households, Row Percent
All
0 Times
(Percent)
1 to 4 Times
(Percent)
5 to 9 Times
(Percent)
10 or More Times
(Percent)
17.0
36.3
18.3
28.4
Primary Method of Account Access
Bank Teller
0.0
23.5
18.2
58.3
Online Banking
15.7
38.2
21.2
24.9
Mobile Banking
20.1
43.4
17.6
18.8
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 25
Smartphone and Home Internet Access
Financial institutions—banks and nonbanks—are
Smartphone and home internet access continued to
seeking to interact with their customers through
be lower among unbanked households than among
the internet and mobile phones, especially
banked households. However, the proportion of
smartphones.
unbanked households that had smartphone access
48
increased from 49.0 percent in 2015 to 63.7 percent
As in earlier surveys, the 2019 survey asked house-
in 2019. The proportion of unbanked households
holds whether they owned or had regular access
that had home internet access in 2019 (33.8 percent)
to a smartphone and whether they had internet
was similar to the proportion in previous years.
access at home using a desktop, laptop, or tablet
computer. Table 4.5 shows that smartphone access
increased between 2015 and 2019, while home
same period.
be lower among rural households than among urban
and suburban households. However, the proportion
internet access was roughly constant during the
49
Smartphone and home internet access continued to
of rural households that had smartphone access
In 2019, about nine in ten house-
increased from 60.2 percent in 2015 to 75.6 percent
holds (90.9 percent) had smartphone or home
in 2019. The proportion of rural households that
internet access.
had home internet access in 2019 (68.0 percent) was
similar to the proportion in previous years.
Table 4.5 Smartphone and Home Internet Access by Bank Account Ownership, Metropolitan Status, and Year
For All Households
Smartphone Access
Home Internet Access
2015
(Percent)
2017
(Percent)
72.3
79.6
85.4
5.8*
77.4
79.4
79.9
0.5
Unbanked
49.0
57.5
63.7
6.2*
31.5
32.9
33.8
1.0
Banked
73.9
81.1
86.6
5.6*
80.7
82.5
82.6
0.1
Urban
75.3
82.2
86.2
4.0*
76.0
79.5
79.5
0.1
Suburban
75.8
82.6
88.4
5.8*
82.4
83.7
84.5
0.8
Rural
60.2
67.7
75.6
7.9*
67.3
69.1
68.0
-1.1
Not Identified
68.0
76.9
83.3
6.3*
75.6
76.6
77.9
1.3
Characteristics
All
2019
Difference
2015
2017
2019
Difference
(Percent) (2019–2017) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (2019–2017)
Bank Account Ownership
Metropolitan Status
Notes: The estimates of smartphone and home internet access in 2017 and 2015 reported here differ from those published in
earlier reports due to a difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details. Asterisk indicates differences
that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Tables B.14 and B.15 for estimates by other household
characteristics and for selected confidence intervals.
In 2015, the FDIC conducted qualitative research to examine the potential for mobile financial services (MFS) to improve banks’ access to underserved
(including unbanked) consumers and the potential for MFS to help banks sustain and grow banking relationships with this same group; the research was
also intended to allow an understanding of the factors limiting this potential. Some focus group participants who used MFS reported that mobile alerts
and monitoring tools had helped them reduce fees, track their finances better, and improve on-the-spot decision-making. Mobile bill payments and
peer-to-peer payments had also helped participants manage payments conveniently and quickly. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Opportunities
for Mobile Financial Services to Engage Underserved Consumers: Qualitative Research Findings (May 25, 2016), fdic.gov/consumers/community/mobile/MFS_
Qualitative_Research_Report.pdf.
49
The estimates of smartphone and home internet access in 2017 and 2015 reported in this section differ from those published in earlier reports due to a
difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details. Recent surveys also asked households whether they owned or had regular access to a
mobile phone (smartphone or non-smartphone). In 2019, 95.0 percent of households had mobile phone access, up from 90.3 percent in 2015. See Appendix
Table B.13 for estimates of mobile phone access by bank account ownership and household characteristics for 2015–2019.
48
26 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Satisfaction With Primary Bank and Clarity of Bank’s
Communication About Account Fees
About nine in ten banked households (91.0 percent) were
The 2019 survey included new questions for banked
bank and thought their bank’s communication about
households, asking about their satisfaction with their
account fees was clear (very or somewhat). Households
primary bank and about their perceptions of how clearly
that thought their bank communicated fees very or
their bank communicates account fees. Almost all banked
somewhat clearly were 17.3 percentage points more likely
households were satisfied with their primary bank and
to be very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank
thought that fees were clearly communicated.
(98.8 percent), compared with households that thought
both satisfied (very or somewhat) with their primary
their bank communicated fees not very clearly or not
As shown in Table 4.6, three in four banked households
clearly at all (81.5 percent).
(75.2 percent) were very satisfied with their primary bank, and one in five (22.0 percent) were somewhat
households that were not very satisfied (1.6 percent) or
Satisfaction With Primary Bank and Clarity of Bank’s
Communication About Account Fees by Household
Characteristics
not satisfied at all (0.6 percent), totaling 2.2 percent, as
Banked households’ satisfaction with their primary
well as households that did not know (0.6 percent).51
bank was consistently high across different segments
satisfied, totaling 97.3 percent.50 The remainder includes
of the population. Between 94.8 and 97.7 percent of the
Two in three banked households (67.7 percent) thought
banked households in the different population segments
that their bank communicated fees very clearly, and
shown in Table 4.7 were very or somewhat satisfied with
one in four (24.4 percent) thought that fees were com-
their primary bank. Among households where income
municated somewhat clearly, totaling 92.1 percent. The
varied a lot from month to month, 94.8 percent were
remainder includes households that thought that fees
very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank, as
were communicated not very clearly (4.4 percent) or not
were 95.2 percent of working-age disabled households,
clearly at all (1.8 percent), totaling 6.2 percent, as well as
96.0 percent of the lowest-income households (less than
households that did not know (1.7 percent).
$15,000), and 96.4, 97.3, and 96.9 percent of Black, Hispanic, and Asian households, respectively.
Table 4.6 Satisfaction With Primary Bank and
Perceptions of Clarity of Own Bank’s Communication
About Account Fees, Among Banked Households, 2019
Banked households’ perceptions of how clearly their
For Banked Households, Column Percent
across banked households. Between 85.4 and 93.1 percent
All
Satisfaction (Percent)
bank communicated fees were also consistently high
of the banked households in the different population
segments shown in Table 4.8 thought that their bank
communicated fees very or somewhat clearly. Among
Very Satisfied
75.2
Somewhat Satisfied
22.0
Not Very Satisfied
1.6
Not Satisfied at All
0.6
of the lowest-income households (less than $15,000),
Don't Know
0.6
89.9 percent of households without a high school diplo-
households where income varied a lot from month to
month, 85.4 percent thought that their bank communicated fees very or somewhat clearly, as did 88.8 percent
ma, 90.1 percent of working-age disabled households,
Clarity (Percent)
Very Clearly
67.7
Somewhat Clearly
24.4
Not Very Clearly
4.4
Not Clearly at All
1.8
Don't Know
1.7
and 89.8 percent of Black households.
As discussed in section 3, 55.1 percent of unbanked households that had previously been banked were very or somewhat satisfied with their most recent
bank. This percentage is about half the percentage of banked households that were very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank (97.3 percent).
51
“Don’t know” was not one of the four administered response options to the questions on satisfaction and clarity. Some households did not choose one of
the four administered response options and instead volunteered “don’t know.” See Appendix 1 for details.
50
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 27
Table 4.7 Satisfaction With Primary Bank, Among Banked Households, by Selected Household Characteristics, 2019
For Banked Households, Row Percent
Very Satisfied
(Percent)
Somewhat
Satisfied
(Percent)
Not Very
Satisfied
(Percent)
Not Satisfied
at All
(Percent)
Don’t Know
(Percent)
75.2
22.0
1.6
0.6
0.6
Less Than $15,000
72.7
23.2
2.1
1.2
0.8
$15,000 to $30,000
74.7
22.2
1.8
0.5
0.8
Characteristics
All
Family Income
$30,000 to $50,000
75.5
21.8
1.4
0.6
0.6
$50,000 to $75,000
76.3
21.2
1.4
0.6
0.6
At Least $75,000
75.3
22.2
1.5
0.6
0.4
No High School Diploma
75.7
21.1
1.6
0.3
1.2
High School Diploma
77.6
19.6
1.6
0.6
0.6
Some College
74.5
22.6
1.5
0.8
0.6
College Degree
74.3
23.3
1.5
0.5
0.4
72.0
25.7
1.1
0.4
0.8
Education
Age Group
15 to 24 Years
25 to 34 Years
72.0
25.7
1.5
0.6
0.3
35 to 44 Years
73.3
23.9
1.8
0.5
0.5
45 to 54 Years
72.5
24.2
1.9
0.9
0.5
55 to 64 Years
76.6
20.8
1.5
0.5
0.6
65 Years or More
79.8
17.5
1.4
0.6
0.7
Race/Ethnicity
Black
69.9
26.5
1.8
0.7
1.1
Hispanic
73.0
24.3
1.7
0.4
0.6
Asian
67.6
29.2
1.5
0.2
1.4
American Indian or Alaska Native
68.6
28.6
2.0
0.8
–
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
White
77.4
20.1
1.5
0.7
0.4
Two or More Races
70.1
26.8
2.2
0.3
0.6
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
71.5
23.7
2.2
1.5
1.0
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
73.9
23.6
1.6
0.5
0.4
Income Was About the Same Each Month
76.5
20.9
1.4
0.6
0.6
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
71.2
26.0
1.6
0.7
0.4
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
68.0
26.7
3.8
0.9
0.5
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Notes: NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. The dash symbol indicates an estimate of zero; the
population proportion may be slightly greater than zero. See Appendix Table B.16 for estimates by other household characteristics.
28 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 4.8 Perceptions of Clarity of Own Bank’s Communication About Account Fees, Among Banked Households,
by Selected Household Characteristics, 2019
For Banked Households, Row Percent
Very Clearly
(Percent)
Somewhat
Clearly
(Percent)
Not Very
Clearly
(Percent)
Not Clearly
at All
(Percent)
Don’t Know
(Percent)
67.7
24.4
4.4
1.8
1.7
Less Than $15,000
66.7
22.1
5.3
2.8
3.1
$15,000 to $30,000
68.6
23.5
4.2
1.4
2.3
Characteristics
All
Family Income
$30,000 to $50,000
69.7
23.4
3.9
1.4
1.6
$50,000 to $75,000
68.9
24.0
4.2
1.6
1.4
At Least $75,000
66.2
25.8
4.7
1.9
1.3
No High School Diploma
68.8
21.1
5.2
1.8
3.2
High School Diploma
71.2
22.0
3.5
1.5
1.9
Some College
68.7
24.0
3.9
1.8
1.6
College Degree
64.8
26.7
5.3
1.9
1.3
67.9
24.6
4.6
1.6
1.3
Education
Age Group
15 to 24 Years
25 to 34 Years
64.3
27.5
5.7
1.7
0.8
35 to 44 Years
64.9
26.5
4.9
2.0
1.7
45 to 54 Years
63.9
27.2
5.2
2.3
1.4
55 to 64 Years
69.6
23.4
3.9
1.6
1.5
65 Years or More
72.7
20.0
3.3
1.4
2.6
Race/Ethnicity
Black
63.5
26.3
5.3
2.3
2.6
Hispanic
64.5
26.6
5.6
1.6
1.7
Asian
60.3
30.9
4.4
2.2
2.2
American Indian or Alaska Native
66.8
25.4
3.9
3.7
0.2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
White
69.7
23.1
4.1
1.6
1.5
Two or More Races
66.3
24.6
6.0
2.5
0.6
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
65.0
25.1
4.6
2.7
2.6
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
65.9
26.2
4.9
1.8
1.2
Income Was About the Same Each Month
68.9
23.7
4.0
1.6
1.8
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
64.3
27.1
5.6
1.9
1.2
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
59.9
25.5
8.8
4.0
1.9
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Notes: NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Table B.17 for estimates by other
household characteristics.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 29
Association of Satisfaction and Clarity With the Use of
Nonbank Financial Transaction Services
households that were not very satisfied or not satis-
Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show how banked households’
nonbank financial transaction services, compared with
satisfaction with their primary bank and their percep-
14.9 percent of households that were very or somewhat
tions of how clearly their bank communicated account
satisfied.53
fied at all, 22.3 percent used at least one of those three
fees were associated with their use of nonbank financial transaction services in the past 12 months. These
Higher shares of banked households that thought their
services include nonbank money orders, check cash-
bank did not communicate fees clearly used nonbank
ing, bill payment services (such as Western Union and
money orders, check cashing, or bill payment services,
MoneyGram), international remittances, and peer-
compared with households that thought their bank com-
to-peer or p
erson-to-person (P2P) payment services
municated fees clearly. Among households that thought
(examples are PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App).52
that fees were communicated not very clearly or not
clearly at all, 20.1 percent used at least one of those three
Higher shares of banked households that were not
nonbank financial transaction services, compared with
satisfied with their primary bank used nonbank mon-
14.7 percent of households that thought fees were com-
ey orders, check cashing, or bill payment services,
municated very or somewhat clearly.54
compared with households that were satisfied. Among
For more details on the use of nonbank financial transaction services, see section 6.
When households that were very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank were compared with households that were not very satisfied or not
satisfied at all, the difference between them in the use of any one of the three nonbank financial transaction services (money orders, check cashing, or bill
payment services) was 7.4 percentage points. A linear probability model was estimated to account for differences across these satisfaction groupings in the
distribution of household-level characteristics shown in Table 3.4. Differences in the characteristics of households were associated with about one-fifth
of the difference between satisfied and not satisfied households. Regarding the use of specific nonbank financial transaction services between satisfied
and not satisfied households, only the difference for check cashing was not statistically significant. The association of differences in satisfaction with
differences in the use of nonbank financial transaction services should not be interpreted as causal, because there are likely factors associated with both
use and satisfaction that are not observed in the survey and are therefore omitted from the linear probability model.
54
When households that thought their bank communicated fees very or somewhat clearly were compared with households that thought their bank
communicated fees not very clearly or not clearly at all, the difference between them in the use of any one of the three nonbank financial transaction
services (money orders, check cashing, or bill payment services) was 5.4 percentage points. A linear probability model was estimated to account for
differences across these perception groupings in the distribution of household-level characteristics shown in Table 3.4. Differences in the characteristics
of households were associated with about three-tenths of this clarity-related difference. The association of differences in perceptions of clarity with
differences in the use of nonbank financial transaction services should not be interpreted as causal, because there are likely factors associated with both
use and perceptions of clarity that are not observed in the survey and are therefore omitted from the linear probability model.
52
53
30 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure 4.3 Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Service Use, Among Banked Households, by Satisfaction With
Primary Bank, 2019 (Percent)
10.1
Money Order
Check Cashing
Bill Payment Service
16.5
4.0
5.0
4.3
7.1
5.3
International Remittance
7.7
32.3
P2P Payment Service
38.5
14.9
Money Order, Check Cashing,
or Bill Payment Service
22.3
Very or Somewhat Satisfied
Not Very Satisfied or Not Satisfied at All
Figure 4.4 Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Service Use, Among Banked Households, by Perceptions of Clarity
of Own Bank’s Communication About Account Fees, 2019 (Percent)
10.0
Money Order
Check Cashing
Bill Payment Service
International Remittance
13.1
3.9
5.3
4.1
7.6
5.1
9.1
31.9
P2P Payment Service
Money Order, Check Cashing,
or Bill Payment Service
42.6
14.7
20.1
Very or Somewhat Clearly
Not Very Clearly or Not Clearly at All
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 31
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
5. Prepaid Cards
Some consumers, both banked and unbanked, use gener-
Prepaid Card Use by Geography
al purpose reloadable prepaid cards to conduct financial
As in previous years, prepaid card use varied across
transactions, such as paying bills, withdrawing cash at
regions of the United States. In 2019, 7.1 percent of
ATMs, making purchases, depositing checks, and receiv-
households in the West used prepaid cards, compared
ing direct deposits. Consumers can obtain prepaid cards
with 8.2 percent in the Northeast, 8.9 percent in the
from banks, employers, government agencies, stores,
Midwest, and 9.3 percent in the South. Figure 5.1 shows
websites, or other sources.55 Many, although not all, such
that prepaid card use varied considerably across states in
cards store funds in accounts eligible for federal deposit
2019, ranging from 4.6 percent in Hawaii to 13.6 percent
insurance.
in Alabama. (See Appendix Tables C.2 and C.3 for detailed
state- and MSA-level estimates and for selected confi-
As in earlier surveys, the 2019 survey asked all house-
dence intervals.)
holds whether they used a prepaid card in the past
12 months.56 In 2019, 8.5 percent of households used pre-
Prepaid Card Use by Bank Account Ownership
paid cards, down from 9.7 percent in 2017 and 10.2 per-
Prepaid card use continued to be more prevalent among
cent in 2015.57
unbanked households than among banked households.
As illustrated in Figure 5.2, 27.7 percent of unbanked
Prepaid Card Use by Household Characteristics
households used a prepaid card in 2019, compared with
Differences in prepaid card use across households in
7.4 percent of banked households.59
2019 were similar to the differences in earlier years. As
shown in Table 5.1, prepaid card use was higher among
Compared with unbanked households that did not use
lower-income households, less-educated households,
prepaid cards, unbanked households that used prepaid
younger households, Black households, working-age dis-
cards were more likely to have had a bank account at
abled households, and households with volatile income.58
some point in the past. In 2019, 65.3 percent of unbanked
Some population segments experienced a decline in
households that used prepaid cards had previously been
prepaid card use between 2015 and 2019. For example,
banked, compared with 45.1 percent of unbanked house-
10.6 percent of households between the ages of 25 and 34
holds that did not use prepaid cards.
used prepaid cards in 2019, compared with 11.5 percent in
2017 and 13.1 percent in 2015.
Additionally, unbanked households that used prepaid
cards were more interested in having a bank account
than were unbanked households that did not use prepaid
cards. In 2019, 30.6 percent of unbanked households that
used prepaid cards were very or somewhat interested in
having a bank account, compared with 22.8 percent of
unbanked households that did not use prepaid cards.60
The survey questions on prepaid cards instructed households not to consider gift cards.
See Appendix 2 for changes that the 2019 survey made to the introductory description of prepaid cards.
57
The estimates of prepaid card use in 2017 and 2015 reported in this section from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how nonresponse
is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
58
Differences in prepaid card use by education were no longer statistically significant after the other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4 and bank
account ownership were accounted for.
59
Prepaid card use among unbanked and banked households was lower in 2019 than in 2015 and 2017; however, the decline among unbanked households
between 2015 and 2019 was not statistically significant, while the decline among banked households was statistically significant. The 2015 and 2017
surveys, which asked households how they paid bills and received income in a typical month, showed that unbanked households were much more likely
than banked households to use prepaid cards for these purposes. For example, 22.1 percent of unbanked households in 2017 paid bills with a prepaid card in
a typical month, compared with 1.2 percent of banked households. Moreover, 23.3 percent of unbanked households in 2017 received income through direct
deposit onto a prepaid card in a typical month, compared with 2.4 percent of banked households. As discussed in Appendix 2, questions on bill payment and
income receipt in a typical month were not repeated in the 2019 survey.
60
Differences by prepaid card use in the likelihood of being very or somewhat interested in having a bank account were no longer statistically significant
after differences in the household characteristics shown in Table 3.4 were accounted for.
55
56
32 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 5.1 Prepaid Card Use by Selected Household Characteristics and Year
For All Households
2015
(Percent)
2017
(Percent)
2019
(Percent)
Difference
(2019–2017)
10.2
9.7
8.5
-1.2*
Less Than $15,000
15.2
13.9
13.5
-0.5
$15,000 to $30,000
11.3
11.0
10.1
-0.9
$30,000 to $50,000
9.2
9.7
8.9
-0.8
$50,000 to $75,000
9.6
8.1
7.7
-0.4
At Least $75,000
8.4
8.4
6.7
-1.7*
No High School Diploma
11.6
11.0
10.3
-0.7
High School Diploma
10.9
9.9
9.3
-0.6
Some College
11.3
10.6
9.3
-1.3*
College Degree
8.4
8.4
7.0
-1.4*
15 to 24 Years
13.1
15.9
11.6
-4.3*
25 to 34 Years
13.1
11.5
10.6
-1.0
35 to 44 Years
11.9
11.4
10.2
-1.2*
45 to 54 Years
11.4
11.4
9.8
-1.6*
55 to 64 Years
9.6
9.1
8.1
-1.0
65 Years or More
5.9
5.2
5.0
-0.2
Black
14.9
14.1
14.8
0.7
Characteristics
All
Family Income
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic
10.1
8.9
7.8
-1.0
Asian
5.8
7.8
5.7
-2.2*
American Indian or Alaska Native
15.1
20.9
9.5
-11.4*
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
16.1
6.2
NA
NA
White
9.4
8.9
7.6
-1.3*
Two or More Races
19.8
14.6
10.0
-4.6
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
15.9
16.6
14.8
-1.8
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
10.8
10.0
8.9
-1.0*
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Income Was About the Same Each Month
9.2
8.9
7.7
-1.2*
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
13.6
12.6
10.9
-1.8*
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
15.5
12.8
13.1
0.2
Notes: The estimates of prepaid card use in 2017 and 2015 reported here differ from those published in earlier reports due to a
difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details. Asterisk indicates differences that are statistically significant at
the 10 percent level. NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Table C.1 for estimates
by other household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 33
Figure 5.1 Prepaid Card Use by State, 2019 (Percent)
WA
ND
MT
OR
MN
ID
WY
MI
IA
NE
NV
IL
UT
CO
KS
CA
OK
NM
AZ
ME
WI
SD
MO
PA
WV
KY
TN
AR
MS
TX
NY
OH
IN
AL
MD
VA
CT
NJ
RI
DE
DC
NC
SC
GA
Less Than 7.3
LA
AK
VT
NH
MA
7.3 to 8.6
FL
8.6 to 9.3
9.3 to 10.6
At Least 10.6
HI
Figure 5.2 Prepaid Card Use by Bank Account Ownership
and Year (Percent)
29.6
29.5
27.7
8.8
Unbanked
8.3
7.4
Banked
2015
2017
2019
Note: The estimates of prepaid card use in 2017 and 2015 reported here differ from
those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how nonresponse is handled;
see Appendix 1 for details.
34 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
6. Nonbank Financial Transaction Services
The 2019 survey included questions about all households’
The 2019 survey also asked new questions about the fre-
use of nonbank financial transaction services during
quency of use—often, sometimes, or rarely—for nonbank
the past 12 months. These services can be used to receive
money orders, check cashing, bill payment services, and
payments, including income. They can also be used to
remittances sent abroad. In the 2015 and 2017 surveys,
send money to friends or relatives, or to pay bills.
households were asked whether they used specific financial transaction services to pay bills in a typical month. The
The specific nonbank financial transaction services that
2019 survey, aside from asking about bill payment services,
were asked about in previous years were money orders,
asked households that used money orders sometimes or
check cashing, and remittances sent abroad. The 2019
often whether they used money orders to pay bills.
survey asked about those same services (use during
the past 12 months), and it also included new questions
Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction Services
about two other types of nonbank financial transac-
Figure 6.1 displays the percentage of all households
tion services: bill payment services (such as are offered
that used each nonbank transaction service in the past
by Western Union and MoneyGram) and use of a web-
12 months, as well as the percentage that used at least
site or app to send or receive money inside the United
one of the following: money orders, check cashing, or
States.61 The latter service—known as a peer-to-peer
bill payment services. In 2019, 11.9 percent of house-
or person-to-person (P2P) payment service—relies on
holds used money orders, 5.5 percent used check cashing,
the user’s having access to the internet with either a
and 4.9 percent used bill payment services. Altogether,
smartphone or a computer. Examples of this service are
17.2 percent of households used at least one of those three
PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App.
services (money orders, check cashing, or bill payment
62
Figure 6.1 Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Service Use, 2019 (Percent)
Money Order
Check Cashing
Bill Payment Service
International Remittance
11.9
5.5
4.9
5.5
P2P Payment Service
Money Order, Check Cashing,
or Bill Payment Service
31.1
17.2
Nonbank bill payment service providers offer money transfer services including bill payment. Customers can pay with cash at physical locations, either
stores or kiosks, or by using online payment methods.
62
To conduct P2P payments, households typically must have a bank account, a prepaid card, or a credit card, with requirements varying across P2P
payment service providers.
61
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 35
Figure 6.2 Nonbank Money Order, Check Cashing, and
International Remittance Use by Year (Percent)
15.7
well as younger households and Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native households. Since 2017, the use
of money orders did not increase for any segment of the
14.3
population reported in Table 6.1, and for most groups it fell
11.9
markedly. The groups for which the use of money orders fell
6.8
Money Order
6.3
most substantially (as a share of previous use) were Asian,
5.5
3.9
Check Cashing
2015
2017
3.7
5.5
International
Remittance
2019
Note: The estimates of nonbank financial transaction services use in 2017 and 2015
reported here differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how
nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
services) in the past 12 months. In addition, 5.5 percent of
households used international remittances, and 31.1 percent used P2P payment services.
Figure 6.2 displays trends in the use of money orders,
check cashing, and international remittances between
2015 and 2019.63 The use of money orders and check cashing fell, with a drop of 2.3 percentage points to 11.9 percent between 2017 and 2019 for money orders and a drop
of 0.7 percentage points to 5.5 percent between 2017 and
2019 for check cashing. Only a small portion of these
changes were associated with changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households between 2017
and 2019. The use of international remittances increased
by 1.9 percentage points to 5.5 percent between 2017 and
2019. Very little of this increase was associated with
changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S.
households between 2017 and 2019.64
Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction Services by
Household Characteristics
Table 6.1 reports the shares of households in 2017 and
2019 that used each of the three nonbank transaction
services covered in the 2017 and 2019 surveys, across different household characteristics. The table also reports
changes in use between 2017 and 2019.
The population segments that were more likely to use money orders were lower-income households, less-educated
households, working-age disabled households, and households where income varied a lot from month to month, as
American Indian or Alaska Native, and Two or More Races
households, as well as households between the ages of 35
and 44 or between the ages of 55 and 64.
The population segments that were more likely to use
check cashing were those with less than $15,000 in
income, those without a high school diploma, and those
where income varied a lot from month to month, as well
as younger households and Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native households. Between 2017
and 2019, changes in the use of check cashing varied
across population segments. The groups for which the
use of check cashing declined most substantially (as a
share of previous use) were Black and Two or More Races
households, households with income of $75,000 or more,
and households with a college degree. One population
segment whose use of check cashing increased is households without a high school diploma.
Foreign-born citizen and noncitizen households as well
as Hispanic and Asian households were most likely to use
international remittances. Between 2017 and 2019, the
use of international remittances increased for almost
every population segment in Table 6.1. For U.S.-born
households, the use of international remittances almost
doubled.65
Table 6.2 reports, by household characteristics, the
shares of households that used each of the two nonbank
transaction services introduced in the 2019 survey: bill
payment services and P2P payment services. In terms
of household characteristics, the use patterns of bill
payment services were similar to those of money orders
and check cashing. The population segments most likely
to use bill payment services were younger households,
households without a high school diploma, and Black,
Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native households. In addition, households with income less than
$50,000 and households with volatile income were more
likely to use bill payment services.
The estimates of nonbank financial transaction services use in 2017 and 2015 reported in this section differ from those published in earlier reports due to
a difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
64
For the use of each service, linear probability models were estimated to account for changes between 2017 and 2019 in the distribution of households
across the household-level characteristics shown in Table 3.4. Changes in household characteristics were associated with only a small portion of the
difference between 2017 and 2019 in the use of money orders, check cashing, and international remittances.
65
The increase in use of international remittances by U.S.-born households (85.3 percent of all households were U.S. born in 2017, and 85.1 percent in 2019)
accounts for close to half of the total increase across all subsets of households.
63
36 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 6.1 Nonbank Money Order, Check Cashing, and International Remittance Use by Selected Household
Characteristics and Year
For All Households
Money Order
Characteristics
All
2017
(Percent)
Check Cashing
2019
Difference
2017
(Percent) (2019–2017) (Percent)
International Remittance
2019
Difference
2017
(Percent) (2019–2017) (Percent)
2019
Difference
(Percent) (2019–2017)
14.3
11.9
-2.3*
6.3
5.5
-0.7*
3.7
5.5
1.9*
Less Than $15,000
24.9
23.0
-1.9
10.9
11.0
0.1
3.8
4.8
1.0*
$15,000 to $30,000
21.3
18.2
-3.1*
10.6
9.0
-1.6*
5.0
6.3
1.3*
$30,000 to $50,000
17.2
15.2
-2.0*
7.0
7.4
0.5
5.1
7.0
2.0*
$50,000 to $75,000
11.2
9.6
-1.6*
4.8
4.3
-0.6
3.5
6.2
2.7*
At Least $75,000
7.4
6.0
-1.4*
3.0
2.4
-0.7*
2.3
4.4
2.1*
No High School Diploma
26.3
23.3
-3.0*
11.5
14.6
3.1*
11.3
14.7
3.4*
High School Diploma
16.9
14.6
-2.3*
8.2
7.1
-1.1*
3.3
5.5
2.2*
Some College
15.2
12.9
-2.2*
6.5
5.8
-0.7*
2.5
4.1
1.6*
College Degree
8.5
6.8
-1.7*
3.2
2.3
-1.0*
2.9
4.5
1.7*
15 to 24 Years
23.8
20.2
-3.6*
11.1
9.8
-1.3
3.3
7.1
3.8*
25 to 34 Years
18.8
16.4
-2.4*
8.0
7.0
-1.1*
4.9
7.2
2.3*
35 to 44 Years
16.9
13.1
-3.7*
7.5
7.0
-0.5
6.3
8.5
2.2*
45 to 54 Years
14.3
12.5
-1.8*
6.1
5.3
-0.8
4.6
6.6
1.9*
55 to 64 Years
13.9
11.0
-2.9*
5.4
4.7
-0.7
2.8
4.4
1.6*
65 Years or More
7.9
7.1
-0.8*
4.1
3.7
-0.4
1.1
2.5
1.3*
Black
31.4
27.2
-4.2*
11.5
9.6
-1.9*
4.4
6.1
1.8*
Hispanic
24.6
20.8
-3.8*
9.9
10.6
0.7
15.6
20.2
4.6*
Asian
8.8
6.9
-1.9*
2.7
2.4
-0.4
8.7
13.3
4.6*
American Indian or Alaska Native
26.6
21.0
-5.7
16.9
11.4
-5.5
1.4
0.3
-1.1
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
17.0
NA
NA
3.9
NA
NA
8.7
NA
NA
Family Income
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
White
9.1
7.3
-1.7*
4.6
3.9
-0.7*
0.8
1.7
0.9*
Two or More Races
22.4
14.2
-8.2*
9.7
3.7
-6.0*
1.1
3.1
2.0
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
23.6
21.1
-2.5*
9.3
9.3
0.0
2.4
3.3
0.9*
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
14.7
12.1
-2.6*
6.3
5.5
-0.8*
4.9
7.0
2.1*
Income Was About the Same
Each Month
12.7
10.7
-2.1*
5.4
4.7
-0.6*
3.1
4.8
1.7*
Income Varied Somewhat From
Month to Month
19.4
15.5
-3.8*
9.0
8.0
-1.0*
5.7
7.7
1.9*
Income Varied a Lot From Month
to Month
24.2
19.9
-4.3*
11.2
10.0
-1.2
6.2
9.8
3.6*
U.S.-Born
13.4
11.3
-2.2*
6.0
5.1
-0.9*
1.2
2.0
0.9*
Foreign-Born Citizen
14.9
11.7
-3.2*
5.3
4.8
-0.5
14.0
20.6
6.6*
Foreign-Born Noncitizen
24.6
21.3
-3.3*
10.1
12.2
2.1*
24.7
32.6
7.9*
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Citizenship and Place of Birth
Notes: The estimates of nonbank financial transaction services use in 2017 reported here differ from those published in earlier reports
due to a difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details. Asterisk indicates differences that are statistically
significant at the 10 percent level. NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Tables
D.4–D.6 for estimates by other household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 37
Table 6.2 Nonbank Bill Payment Service and P2P Payment Service Use by Selected Household Characteristics, 2019
For All Households, Row Percent
Bill Payment Service
(Percent)
P2P Payment Service
(Percent)
4.9
31.1
Less Than $15,000
6.6
14.6
$15,000 to $30,000
6.6
17.1
$30,000 to $50,000
6.6
24.5
$50,000 to $75,000
5.1
31.3
At Least $75,000
2.8
44.2
No High School Diploma
9.8
10.2
High School Diploma
5.6
18.4
Some College
5.2
30.1
College Degree
3.1
44.8
15 to 24 Years
10.5
43.9
25 to 34 Years
7.5
49.7
35 to 44 Years
5.7
41.6
45 to 54 Years
5.1
34.6
55 to 64 Years
4.2
24.5
65 Years or More
2.1
12.7
Black
9.3
27.7
Hispanic
10.6
24.3
Asian
4.8
38.0
American Indian or Alaska Native
10.5
22.3
Characteristics
All
Family Income
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NA
NA
White
2.8
32.5
Two or More Races
4.3
40.1
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
6.5
20.6
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
5.5
39.4
Income Was About the Same Each Month
4.2
29.3
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
6.9
37.5
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
8.4
36.4
U.S.-Born
4.0
32.1
Foreign-Born Citizen
7.9
24.8
Foreign-Born Noncitizen
12.9
26.3
Has Neither
4.2
2.9
Has at Least One
5.0
33.9
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Citizenship and Place of Birth
Smartphone or Home Internet Access
Notes: NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Table D.1 for estimates by other
household characteristics.
38 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
ments were substantially different from the charac-
Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction Services by Bank
Account Ownership
teristics of households that used the other nonbank
Figure 6.3 displays the use of nonbank transaction ser-
transaction services. The households most likely to
vices among unbanked households and among banked
use P2P payment services were those with income of
households. In 2019 among unbanked households,
$75,000 or more, those with a college degree, younger
42.3 percent used money orders, 31.9 percent used check
and middle-aged households, working-age nondisabled
cashing, and 14.4 percent used bill payment services;
households, Asian households, and Two or More Races
more than half (56.1 percent) used at least one of these
households. Use of P2P payment services requires access
three transaction services. In addition, 9.4 percent of
to the internet with either a smartphone or a comput-
unbanked households used international remittanc-
er. About one in three households (33.9 percent) that
es, and 8.8 percent used P2P payment services. Among
had smartphone access or home internet access made
banked households, 10.2 percent used money orders,
P2P payments in 2019, compared with only 2.9 percent
4.0 percent used check cashing, and 4.4 percent used bill
of households that had neither smartphone access nor
payment services; 15.0 percent used at least one of these
home internet access. (For more information on smart-
three transaction services. In addition, 5.3 percent of
phone and home internet access, see section 4.) Among
banked households used international remittances, and
users of at least one among the group consisting of
32.3 percent used P2P payment services.
The characteristics of households that made P2P pay-
money orders, check cashing, and bill payment services, about a third (32.3 percent) also used P2P payment services, whereas fewer than one in five P2P users
(17.9 percent) also used any of those other three nonbank
transaction services.
Figure 6.3 Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Service Use by Bank Account Ownership, 2019 (Percent)
42.3
31.9
14.4
Unbanked
9.4
8.8
56.1
10.2
4.0
Banked
4.4
5.3
32.3
15.0
Money Order
Check Cashing
Bill Payment Service
International Remittance
P2P Payment Service
Money Order, Check Cashing, or Bill Payment Service
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 39
Table 6.3 Nonbank Money Order, Check Cashing, and International Remittance Use by Bank Account Ownership and Year
For All Households
Specific Nonbank Financial
Transaction Services
2015
(Percent)
2017
(Percent)
2019
(Percent)
Difference
(2019–2017)
Money Order
15.7
14.3
11.9
-2.3*
Check Cashing
6.8
6.3
5.5
-0.7*
International Remittance
3.9
3.7
5.5
1.9*
Money Order
47.8
44.0
42.3
-1.7
Check Cashing
33.7
30.0
31.9
1.9
International Remittance
8.8
6.3
9.4
3.1*
Money Order
13.4
12.3
10.2
-2.1*
Check Cashing
4.9
4.7
4.0
-0.6*
International Remittance
3.6
3.5
5.3
1.8*
A. All Households
B. Unbanked Households
C. Banked Households
Notes: The estimates of nonbank financial transaction services use in 2017 and 2015 reported here differ from those published in
earlier reports due to a difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details. Asterisk indicates differences that are
statistically significant at the 10 percent level.
The use by unbanked households of money orders and
is the percentage of households that did not use these
check cashing was proportionally similar in 2019 to what
services). Money orders tended to be used often (4.4 per-
it had been in 2017 (see Table 6.3). For banked households,
cent) or rarely (4.6 percent), with a smaller share using
the use of money orders fell by 2.1 percentage points
them only sometimes (2.9 percent). The use of check
between 2017 and 2019, and the use of check cashing
cashing and bill payment services was distributed more
fell by 0.6 percentage points. For both unbanked and
evenly, with similar percentages of households using
banked households, the use of international remittances
each of the two types often, sometimes, or rarely.66
increased markedly between 2017 and 2019: for unbanked
International remittances were typically used sometimes
households, the use increased by 3.1 percentage points,
(2.4 percent), compared with often (1.4 percent) and rare-
while for banked households, the use increased by
ly (1.7 percent).
1.8 percentage points. For each group, the 2019 level was
approximately 1.5 times what it had been in 2017.
Frequency of Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction
Services by Household Characteristics
Frequency of Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction
Services
Table 6.4 reports frequency of use by household charac-
The 2019 survey included new questions on the frequency
each population segment that used a nonbank transac-
of use of nonbank transaction services other than P2P
tion service often (as opposed to sometimes or rarely).67
payment services, specifically on whether each nonbank
For each of the four nonbank transaction services, the
transaction service was used often, sometimes, or rarely.
population segments (e.g., those without a high school
teristics, with a focus on the percentage of households in
diploma) that more commonly used a nonbank transacFigure 6.4 reports the frequency with which money
tion service (at all) also tended to use that service more
orders, check cashing, bill payment services, and inter-
frequently.
national remittances were used in 2019 (not reported
Figure 6.1 indicates that about one in six households (17.2 percent) used money orders, check cashing, or bill payment at least once in 2019. Among these
households, 38.6 percent often used at least one of those services (6.7 percent of all households).
67
For most population segments, the use patterns presented in Table 6.4 for just often would be similar to the patterns if use had been measured as
the percentage of households using a nonbank transaction service often or sometimes. There are exceptions; for example, households where income
varied a lot from month to month were disproportionately likely to use international remittances often or sometimes (6.2 percent versus 3.8 percent for
all households) compared with just often (1.6 percent versus 1.4 percent for all households), as well as to use bill payment services often or sometimes
(6.0 percent versus 3.5 percent for all households) compared with just often (2.4 percent versus 1.8 percent for all households).
66
40 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure 6.4 Frequency of Use of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services, 2019 (Percent)
4.6
4.4
2.9
2.4
1.8
Money Order
1.9
1.9
1.8
Check Cashing
1.7
Bill Payment Service
Often
Sometimes
1.7
1.4
1.4
International Remittance
Rarely
Notes: This figure does not report the percentage of households that did not use the particular service in the past 12 months. For nonbank money orders, check cashing, bill
payment services, and international remittances, 88.1, 94.5, 95.1, and 94.5 percent of households, respectively, did not use the particular service.
Table 6.4 Frequency of Use (Often) of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services by Selected Household
Characteristics, 2019
For All Households, Row Percent
Characteristics
All
Money Order
(Percent)
Check Cashing
(Percent)
Bill Payment
Service
(Percent)
International
Remittance
(Percent)
4.4
1.8
1.8
1.4
Family Income
Less Than $15,000
12.1
4.5
2.7
1.1
$15,000 to $30,000
7.6
3.3
2.4
1.6
$30,000 to $50,000
6.0
2.4
2.7
2.0
$50,000 to $75,000
2.7
1.0
1.8
1.6
At Least $75,000
1.0
0.5
0.9
1.1
No High School Diploma
12.6
7.2
4.4
4.4
High School Diploma
5.9
2.3
2.1
1.6
Some College
4.9
1.5
1.9
1.0
College Degree
1.3
0.4
0.9
1.0
15 to 24 Years
7.4
2.2
4.2
1.8
25 to 34 Years
6.4
2.4
2.8
1.7
35 to 44 Years
4.7
2.6
2.0
2.0
45 to 54 Years
4.4
1.9
1.9
1.7
55 to 64 Years
4.2
1.5
1.7
1.5
65 Years or More
2.6
0.9
0.6
0.6
Education
Age Group
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 41
Table 6.4 Frequency of Use (Often) of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services by Selected Household
Characteristics, 2019 (continued)
For All Households, Row Percent
Money Order
(Percent)
Check Cashing
(Percent)
Bill Payment
Service
(Percent)
International
Remittance
(Percent)
Black
12.2
3.4
3.7
1.7
Hispanic
8.1
4.6
3.6
5.9
Asian
1.0
0.7
1.1
3.5
American Indian or Alaska Native
11.1
4.1
3.4
–
Characteristics
Race/Ethnicity
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NA
NA
NA
NA
White
2.3
0.9
1.1
0.3
Two or More Races
5.9
0.1
1.7
–
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
9.7
3.1
2.7
0.9
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
4.2
1.9
2.0
1.8
Income Was About the Same Each Month
4.1
1.5
1.5
1.2
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
5.5
2.5
2.9
2.2
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
6.3
3.5
2.4
1.6
U.S.-Born
4.2
1.5
1.5
0.3
Foreign-Born Citizen
3.4
1.4
2.3
5.2
Foreign-Born Noncitizen
8.7
6.4
4.7
10.9
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Citizenship and Place of Birth
Notes: NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. The dash symbol indicates an estimate of zero;
the population proportion may be slightly greater than zero. See Appendix Tables D.7–D.10 for estimates by other household
characteristics.
For example, Figure 6.5 shows the use of check cashing
Among households using check cashing at all, less-
and the frequency of use by education level. Popula-
educated households were more likely to use check cash-
tion segments where the use of check cashing was more
ing often. About half of households without a high school
common (less-educated households) were more likely
diploma that used check cashing did so often, compared
to use check cashing often. In 2019, about one in seven
with about one in five households with a college degree
households without a high school diploma (14.6 percent)
(49.4 percent compared with 17.9 percent).
used nonbank check cashing, and 7.2 percent did so often.
For comparison, 2.3 percent of households with a college
Another example of the pattern described above is shown
degree used check cashing, and 0.4 percent did so often.
in Figure 6.6, which examines the use of i nternational
Figure 6.5 Nonbank Check Cashing Use and Frequency
of Use (Often) by Education, 2019 (Percent)
Figure 6.6 Nonbank International Remittance Use and
Frequency of Use (Often) by Citizenship and Place of
Birth, 2019 (Percent)
14.6
32.6
7.2
No High
School
Diploma
7.1
20.6
5.8
2.3
1.5
High
School
Diploma
Some
College
Used at Least Once
2.3
0.4
College
Degree
2.0
Used Often
42 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
0.3
U.S.-Born
10.9
5.2
Foreign-Born
Citizen
Used at Least Once
Foreign-Born
Noncitizen
Used Often
remittances and the frequency of use, by citizenship
used check cashing. The shares of unbanked households
and place of birth. Population segments where the use
that often used bill payment services (7.1 percent) and
of international remittances was more common (the
international remittances (3.3 percent) were lower. For
foreign born and especially noncitizens) were more likely
money orders, check cashing, and bill payment services,
to use remittances often. About one in three foreign-born
a majority of the unbanked households that used those
noncitizen households (32.6 percent) used interna-
nonbank transaction services at all also used them often
tional remittances in 2019, and one in ten (10.9 percent)
(making up 60.0, 55.9, and 48.8 percent of those users,
did so often. For comparison, 2.0 percent of U.S.-born
respectively).
households used international remittances in 2019, and
0.3 percent did so often. Among households using inter-
Very small shares of banked households often used
national remittances at all, foreign-born citizen and
money orders (3.2 percent), check cashing (0.9 percent),
noncitizen households were more likely to use them
bill payment services (1.5 percent), or international
often. One-third of foreign-born noncitizen households
remittances (1.3 percent). Among banked households that
that used remittances did so often, compared with about
used each nonbank transaction service in 2019, the share
one in six U.S.-born households (33.4 percent compared
of households that often used each of the transaction
with 17.0 percent).
services was 31.5 percent for money orders, 21.5 percent
for check cashing, 34.4 percent for bill payment services,
Frequency of Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction
Services by Bank Account Ownership
and 24.8 percent for international remittances. Among
banked households, higher shares of those with less than
Table 6.5 reports—by bank account ownership—the
$15,000 in income and of those without a high school
frequency with which households in 2019 used non-
diploma, as well as Black and Hispanic households,
bank financial transaction services. About one in four
used money orders, check cashing, and bill payment
unbanked households (25.4 percent) often used money
services often.
orders, and more than one in six (17.8 percent) often
Table 6.5 Frequency of Use of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services by Bank Account Ownership, 2019
For All Households, Row Percent
Specific Nonbank Financial
Transaction Services
Often
(Percent)
Sometimes
(Percent)
Rarely
(Percent)
Did Not Use
(Percent)
Money Order
4.4
2.9
4.6
88.1
Check Cashing
1.8
1.9
1.9
94.5
Bill Payment Service
1.8
1.7
1.4
95.1
International Remittance
1.4
2.4
1.7
94.5
Money Order
25.4
10.6
6.3
57.7
Check Cashing
17.8
8.5
5.5
68.1
Bill Payment Service
7.1
5.3
2.1
85.6
International Remittance
3.3
4.4
1.7
90.6
Money Order
3.2
2.5
4.5
89.8
Check Cashing
0.9
1.5
1.7
96.0
Bill Payment Service
1.5
1.5
1.4
95.6
International Remittance
1.3
2.3
1.7
94.7
A. All Households
B. Unbanked Households
C. Banked Households
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 43
Use of Nonbank Money Orders for Paying Bills
ey orders. Households that rarely used money orders in
The 2019 survey also asked about the use of money orders
2019 might also have paid bills with their money orders,
for paying bills but only of the 7.3 percent of households
but these households were not asked about paying bills.
that sometimes or often used money orders (11.9 percent
Among households that used money orders sometimes or
of all households used money orders in 2019).68 In 2019,
often, both banked and unbanked households used mon-
6.4 percent of all households used a money order some-
ey orders for paying bills at a rate of about nine in ten:
times or often and used a money order to pay bills. These
92.2 percent of unbanked households and 85.3 percent of
households constitute almost nine in ten (87.1 percent)
banked households.
of the households that sometimes or often used mon-
In 2015 and 2017, households were asked the methods they used to pay bills in a typical month. The methods included nonbank money orders. Because the
reference time frame used in the 2019 survey was different from the one used in the 2015 and 2017 surveys—the past 12 months versus in a typical month—
the responses are not comparable.
68
44 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
7. Bank and Nonbank Credit
Recognizing the importance of credit to households and
may use to address cash-flow imbalances, unexpected
communities, policymakers have had a longstanding
expenses, or temporary income shortfalls.74 A house-
interest in not only ensuring equal access to credit but also
hold is considered to have used bank credit if, in the past
in expanding access to credit, as evidenced by the Equal
12 months, it had a Visa, MasterCard, American Express,
Credit Opportunity Act, the Community Reinvestment Act,
or Discover credit card (i.e., a credit card) or a personal
and the creation of the Community Development Finan-
loan or line of credit from a bank (i.e., a bank personal
cial Institutions Fund.69 In March 2020, the FDIC, Board of
loan). A household is considered to have used nonbank
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Consumer
credit if it used a rent-to-own service or a payday, auto
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), National Credit Union
title, pawn shop, or tax refund anticipation loan in the
Administration (NCUA), and Office of the Comptroller of
past 12 months.75
the Currency (OCC) issued a statement encouraging financial institutions to offer responsible small-dollar loans to
Like the previous two surveys, the 2019 survey asked
consumers and small businesses in response to COVID-
about measures of the demand for bank credit. Spe-
19.70 In May 2020, the FDIC, FRB, NCUA, and OCC issued
cifically, households were asked whether, in the past
interagency guidance to clarify regulatory expectations
12 months, they applied for bank credit (i.e., applied),
in a manner that encourages financial institutions to offer
were turned down for bank credit or not given as much
responsible small-dollar loans.71 Additional efforts have
credit as they applied for (i.e., denied or not given as
focused on credit access for the nearly 20 percent of adults
much credit as requested), or thought about applying for
who are credit invisible (i.e., do not have a credit record
bank credit but did not because of concerns about being
with one of the nationwide credit reporting agencies) or
turned down (i.e., did not apply because of concerns
unscorable (i.e., have a credit record, but the record does
about being turned down).
not contain sufficient information to generate a credit
score).72 Without a credit score, a household may have to
Changes in Bank and Nonbank Credit Use
meet its credit needs with forms of credit that are typically
Figure 7.1 shows changes between 2015 and 2019 in the
more expensive than bank credit—forms such as nonbank
share of households that used bank credit and the share
credit products like pawn shop or payday loans.
that used nonbank credit. The share of households that
73
used bank credit increased from 67.9 percent in 2015
This section examines household use of bank credit and
to 72.5 percent in 2019.76 The share of households that
nonbank credit, focusing on products that households
used nonbank credit declined from 8.1 percent in 2015
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination by creditors against credit applicants along several dimensions, including race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, marital status, and age (see fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6000-1200.html). The Community Reinvestment Act “is intended
to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations” (see ffiec.gov/cra/history.htm). The mission of the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund “is to expand economic opportunity for underserved people and communities by supporting the growth and capacity of a national
network of community development lenders, investors, and financial service providers” (see cdfifund.gov/about/Pages/default.aspx).
70
See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit
Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Statement Encouraging Responsible Small-Dollar Lending to Consumers and Small
Businesses in Response to COVID-19 (March 26, 2020), fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2020/fil20026.html.
71
See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Interagency Guidance for Responsible Small-Dollar Loans (May 20, 2020), fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2020/
fil20058.html.
72
See Kenneth P. Brevoort, Philipp Grimm, and Michelle Kambara, Data Point: Credit Invisibles, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2015),
consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/data-point-credit-invisibles; Kenneth P. Brevoort and Michelle Kambara, CFPB Data Point:
Becoming Credit Visible, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2017), consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/cfpb-data-point-becomingcredit-visible; and Kenneth Brevoort, Jasper Clarkberg, Michelle Kambara, and Benjamin Litwin, Data Point: The Geography of Credit Invisibility, Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (2018), consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/data-point-geography-credit-invisibility.
73
Credit cards are the most common way consumers initiate a credit file with the nationwide credit reporting agencies and eventually become scorable. See
Brevoort and Kambara, CFPB Data Point: Becoming Credit Visible.
74
Certain nonbank installment loans that may be used for short-term credit needs were not captured in the 2019 survey. Credit products that are used
primarily to finance large expenditures, such as mortgages, auto loans, and student loans, are beyond the scope of the 2019 survey.
75
See Appendix 2 for changes in the wording of some questions across survey years.
76
Because of changes in the wording of the survey instrument, bank personal loans are comparable only in 2015 and 2019 and not from 2015 to 2017 or from
2017 to 2019. See Appendix 2 for details.
69
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 45
Figure 7.1 Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Year
(Percent)
67.9
69.6
Differences by education and income were especially
pronounced. For example, in 2019, only 37.1 percent of
households without a high school diploma used bank
72.5
credit, compared with 87.5 percent of households with
a college degree. Similarly, only 37.0 percent of households with less than $15,000 in income used bank credit,
compared with 89.9 percent of households with income
8.1
Bank Credit
2015
2017
7.5
4.8
of $75,000 or more.
Nonbank Credit
Differences by race and ethnicity and by disability status
2019
were also large. In 2019, 52.5 percent of Black households,
Notes: Because of changes in the wording of the survey instrument, bank personal
loans are comparable only in 2015 and 2019 and not from 2015 to 2017 or from 2017
to 2019. The share of households that had a bank personal loan is small compared
with the share that had a credit card; therefore, bank personal loans constitute only
a small part of bank credit. The estimates of nonbank credit use in 2017 and 2015
reported here differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how
nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
and 7.5 percent in 2017 to 4.8 percent in 2019.77 Even
after changes in income and other characteristics of U.S.
households were accounted for, the decline between 2017
and 2019 remained large and statistically significant.78
The increase in bank credit use and the decline in nonbank credit use occurred broadly across different seg-
58.6 percent of Hispanic households, and 54.4 percent of
American Indian or Alaska Native households used bank
credit, compared with 78.7 percent of White households.
About half of working-age disabled households (49.2 percent) used bank credit, compared with 76.5 percent of
working-age nondisabled households.
The differences by race and ethnicity persist at every
income level. As shown in Figure 7.2, at all income levels,
Black and Hispanic households were less likely than White
households to use bank credit. For example, in 2019, even
among households with income of $75,000 or more, about
80 percent of Black and Hispanic households used bank
ments of the population, as shown in Table 7.1.
credit, whereas about 90 percent of White households did
Table 7.2 displays changes in the use of specific credit
37.8 percent of households with income less than $50,000
products overall and by bank account ownership between
2015 and 2019. Credit card ownership increased from
66.5 percent in 2015 and 68.7 percent in 2017 to 71.3 percent in 2019. Use of each nonbank credit product declined,
with refund anticipation loans exhibiting the largest
decrease. These changes were largely driven by a decline
in the share of banked households that used nonbank
credit, though use of refund anticipation loans decreased
so. Among American Indian or Alaska Native households,
and 78.7 percent of households with income greater than
$50,000 used bank credit.79 Some, but not all, of the racial
and ethnic differences in the use of bank credit were associated with racial and ethnic differences in bank account
ownership and socioeconomic and demographic characteristics beyond income.80
Working-age disabled households at all income levels
for both unbanked and banked households.
were also less likely to use bank credit. For example, in
Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Household
Characteristics
with income of $75,000 or more used bank credit, com-
As shown in Table 7.1, lower-income households,
less-educated households, Black households, Hispanic
households, American Indian or Alaska Native households, and working-age disabled households were less
likely to use bank credit.
2019, 84.6 percent of working-age disabled households
pared with 90.3 percent of working-age nondisabled
households with income of $75,000 or more. Some, but
not all, of the differences in the use of bank credit by
disability status were associated with differences in bank
account ownership and socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics beyond income.
The estimates of nonbank credit use in 2017 and 2015 reported in this section differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how
nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.
78
See Table 3.4 for the list of household characteristics.
79
The sample size for American Indian or Alaska Native households is not large enough to disaggregate by finer income categories.
80
Using the 2015 survey data, Goodstein et al. (2018) found that differences in bank credit use between Black and White households and between Hispanic
and White households remained statistically and economically significant after bank account ownership, subjective attitudes about banks, income and
other household characteristics, geographic proximity to financial providers, and neighborhood population characteristics were accounted for. See Ryan
M. Goodstein, Alicia A. Lloro, Sherrie L. W. Rhine, and Jeffrey M. Weinstein, What Accounts for Racial and Ethnic Differences in Credit Use? (FDIC Division of
Depositor & Consumer Protection, Working Paper 2018-01), papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3220050.
77
46 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 7.1 Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Selected Household Characteristics and Year
For All Households
Bank Credit
Nonbank Credit
2015
(Percent)
2019
(Percent)
Difference
(2019–2015)
2015
(Percent)
2019
(Percent)
Difference
(2019–2015)
67.9
72.5
4.6*
8.1
4.8
-3.3*
Less Than $15,000
32.2
37.0
4.9*
13.1
7.9
-5.2*
$15,000 to $30,000
50.9
52.0
1.1
11.0
6.7
-4.3*
$30,000 to $50,000
65.4
66.9
1.5
10.2
6.8
-3.5*
$50,000 to $75,000
77.4
79.0
1.6*
7.0
4.7
-2.3*
At Least $75,000
88.7
89.9
1.2*
3.8
2.3
-1.5*
No High School Diploma
34.4
37.1
2.7*
12.2
9.0
-3.2*
High School Diploma
57.2
61.7
4.5*
10.5
6.0
-4.4*
Some College
68.8
72.5
3.7*
9.3
5.6
-3.7*
College Degree
85.8
87.5
1.8*
4.1
2.4
-1.6*
15 to 24 Years
53.4
60.9
7.5*
14.4
6.8
-7.6*
25 to 34 Years
64.8
72.1
7.3*
12.0
6.9
-5.0*
35 to 44 Years
67.4
73.2
5.8*
10.3
6.1
-4.2*
45 to 54 Years
69.0
74.3
5.2*
8.6
5.5
-3.1*
55 to 64 Years
70.6
73.5
2.9*
6.2
4.3
-1.9*
65 Years or More
70.5
72.5
2.0*
3.8
2.2
-1.6*
Black
44.6
52.5
7.9*
14.2
8.8
-5.3*
Hispanic
49.9
58.6
8.7*
10.8
7.5
-3.3*
Asian
78.9
83.4
4.6*
4.7
2.5
-2.2*
American Indian or Alaska Native
44.3
54.4
10.0*
19.2
9.2
-10.0*
Characteristics
All
Family Income
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
White
75.2
78.7
3.5*
6.5
3.6
-2.9*
Two or More Races
62.1
69.3
7.2*
13.6
5.4
-8.2*
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
42.5
49.2
6.7*
15.6
10.6
-5.0*
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
71.8
76.5
4.7*
8.2
5.0
-3.2*
Income Was About the Same Each Month
68.8
73.0
4.2*
6.9
4.1
-2.9*
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
66.3
71.4
5.0*
11.5
7.1
-4.4*
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
61.0
68.0
7.0*
15.4
8.8
-6.6*
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Notes: Because of changes in the wording of the survey instrument, bank personal loans are comparable only in 2015 and 2019 and
not from 2015 to 2017 or from 2017 to 2019. The share of households that had a bank personal loan is small compared with the share
that had a credit card; therefore, bank personal loans constitute only a small part of bank credit. The estimates of nonbank credit use
in 2015 reported here differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1
for details. Asterisk indicates differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. NA indicates that the sample size is too
small to produce a precise estimate.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 47
Turning to nonbank credit use, lower income households,
income that varied a lot from month to month were more
less-educated households, Black households, Hispan-
than twice as likely to use nonbank credit as households
ic households, and working-age disabled households
with income that was about the same each month.
were more likely to use nonbank credit. Households with
Table 7.2 Specific Credit Product Use by Bank Account Ownership and Year
For All Households
2015
(Percent)
2017
(Percent)
2019
(Percent)
Difference
(2019–2017)
Credit Card
66.5
68.7
71.3
2.6*
Bank Personal Loan
9.8
6.9+
10.8
Pawn Shop Loan
2.0
1.6
1.3
-0.3*
Payday Loan
2.1
1.8
1.5
-0.3*
Tax Refund Anticipation Loan
2.7
2.5
0.8
-1.7*
Rent-To-Own Service
1.9
1.6
1.2
-0.4*
Auto Title Loan
1.4
1.5
0.9
-0.6*
Memo: Bank Credit
67.9
69.6+
72.5
Memo: Nonbank Credit
8.1
7.5
4.8
-2.6*
6.5
7.2
8.0
0.8
Bank Personal Loan
1.6
1.2+
1.0
Pawn Shop Loan
7.5
5.0
5.6
0.6
Payday Loan
4.0
3.2
2.6
-0.6
Tax Refund Anticipation Loan
5.0
3.9
2.5
-1.4*
Rent-To-Own Service
5.6
4.3
4.0
-0.3
Auto Title Loan
2.7
2.6
1.8
-0.8
Memo: Bank Credit
7.9
7.9+
8.5
Memo: Nonbank Credit
18.5
14.2
13.4
-0.8
Credit Card
70.8
72.8
74.9
2.1*
Bank Personal Loan
10.4
7.3+
11.3
Pawn Shop Loan
1.6
1.3
1.1
-0.3*
Payday Loan
1.9
1.7
1.5
-0.3*
Tax Refund Anticipation Loan
2.6
2.4
0.7
-1.7*
Rent-To-Own Service
1.6
1.4
1.1
-0.4*
Auto Title Loan
1.4
1.4
0.8
-0.6*
Memo: Bank Credit
72.2
73.7+
76.1
Memo: Nonbank Credit
7.4
7.0
4.3
Specific Credit Products
A. All Households
B. Unbanked Households
Credit Card
C. Banked Households
-2.7*
Notes: The estimates of nonbank credit use in 2017 and 2015 reported here differ from those published in earlier reports due to a
difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details. The plus symbol indicates an estimate that is not comparable
from 2015 to 2017 or from 2017 to 2019 because of changes in the wording of the survey instrument. Asterisk indicates differences that
are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Table E.4 for estimates of the use of specific nonbank credit products
by household characteristics for 2019, and Appendix Tables E.7 and E.11 for estimates of credit card ownership and of the use overall of
nonbank credit over time by household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals.
48 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Figure 7.2 Bank Credit Use by Household Income Level and Race and Ethnicity, 2019 (Percent)
Less Than $15,000
23.5
30.3
45.0
38.3
42.1
$15,000 to $30,000
59.4
52.8
55.1
$30,000 to $50,000
73.0
69.2
70.7
$50,000 to $75,000
82.2
80.6
83.8
At Least $75,000
Black
Hispanic
91.3
White
Note: The sample size for American Indian or Alaska Native households is not large enough to disaggregate by these income categories.
Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Geography
Patterns in use of bank credit by metropolitan status
Use of bank and nonbank credit varied across regions of
differed across regions, as shown in Figure 7.5. The rural
the United States. In 2019, 67.2 percent of households in
South stands out, where only 55.4 percent of households
the South used bank credit, compared with 76.0 percent in
used bank credit. In the West, as well, rural households
the Northeast, 75.4 percent in the Midwest, and 75.9 per-
were less likely than urban and suburban households to
cent in the West. Use of nonbank credit was highest in the
use bank credit. In the Northeast, urban households were
South (6.3 percent), followed by the Midwest (5.0 percent),
the least likely to use bank credit (64.0 percent), com-
the West (3.9 percent), and the Northeast (2.6 percent).
pared with suburban (81.4 percent) and rural (79.2 percent) Northeast households. Finally, in the Midwest,
Figures 7.3 and 7.4 show that bank and nonbank credit
urban and rural households were less likely than subur-
use varied widely across states: 85.3 percent of house-
ban households to use bank credit.
holds in New Hampshire used bank credit, compared with
52.4 percent in Mississippi. Use of nonbank credit was
With one exception, the use of nonbank credit was high-
highest in Nevada (10.7 percent) and lowest in Wisconsin
est in rural areas regardless of region, as shown in Fig-
(1.8 percent). (See Appendix Tables E.2, E.3, E.5, and E.6
ure 7.6. The exception is the South, where the proportion
for detailed state- and MSA-level estimates of bank and
of urban households that used nonbank credit (6.8 per-
nonbank credit use.)
cent) was almost identical to the proportion among rural
households (7.0 percent).
Use of bank and nonbank credit also varied by the
metropolitan status of a household’s residence. In 2019,
Changes in Bank Credit Demand Measures
64.6 percent of rural households used bank credit,
Table 7.3 shows changes in measures of bank credit
compared with 69.2 percent of urban households and
demand between 2015 and 2019. The share of households
77.3 percent of suburban households. In addition to being
that applied for bank credit increased from 13.9 percent in
less likely to use bank credit, rural households were more
2015 and 14.1 percent in 2017 to 15.1 percent in 2019. Among
likely to use nonbank credit (6.3 percent), compared with
households that had applied for bank credit, the share
urban households (4.9 percent) and suburban households
that were denied or not given as much credit as request-
(4.1 percent).
ed declined from 20.0 percent in 2015 and 19.5 percent in
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 49
Figure 7.3 Bank Credit Use by State, 2019 (Percent)
WA
ND
MT
OR
MN
ID
WY
MI
IA
NE
NV
IL
UT
CO
KS
CA
TN
MS
TX
PA
WV
KY
AR
VT
NH
MA
NY
OH
IN
MO
OK
NM
AZ
ME
WI
SD
MD
VA
CT
NJ
RI
DE
DC
NC
SC
AL
GA
Less Than 66.5
LA
66.5 to 73.4
AK
73.4 to 75.7
FL
75.7 to 79.6
At Least 79.6
HI
Figure 7.4 Nonbank Credit Use by State, 2019 (Percent)
WA
ND
MT
OR
MN
ID
WY
UT
IL
CO
KS
CA
AZ
MI
IA
NE
NV
ME
WI
SD
OK
NM
MO
PA
WV
KY
TN
AR
MS
TX
NY
OH
IN
AL
MD
VA
CT
NJ
RI
DE
DC
NC
SC
GA
Less Than 3.0
LA
AK
VT
NH
MA
3.0 to 4.6
FL
4.6 to 5.5
5.5 to 6.9
At Least 6.9
HI
50 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 7.3 Bank Credit Demand Measures by Year
For All Households
Applied
Among Households That Had Applied, Share That Were Denied or
Not Given as Much Credit as Requested
Did Not Apply Because of Concerns About Being Turned Down
2015
(Percent)
2017
(Percent)
2019
(Percent)
Difference
(2019–2017)
13.9
14.1
15.1
0.9*
20.0
19.5
17.1
-2.4*
6.1
5.6
6.3
0.7*
Notes: Asterisk indicates differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Tables E.8–E.10 for estimates
by bank account ownership and household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals.
Figure 7.5 Bank Credit Use by Metropolitan Status and Region, 2019 (Percent)
81.4
81.6
79.2
64.0
72.8
70.4
68.9
76.2
77.7
67.7
65.3
55.4
Northeast
Midwest
South
Urban
Suburban
West
Rural
Note: This figure does not display bank credit use for households where—to maintain confidentiality—the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, or rural status
(14.2 percent of households).
Figure 7.6 Nonbank Credit Use by Metropolitan Status and Region, 2019 (Percent)
6.4
5.5
4.4
2.0
7.0
6.8
5.4
4.1
4.0
3.0
2.6
Northeast
5.3
Midwest
Urban
South
Suburban
West
Rural
Note: This figure does not display nonbank credit use for households where—to maintain confidentiality—the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, or rural
status (14.2 percent of households).
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 51
2017 to 17.1 percent in 2019. The share of households that
(2.8 percent) than banked households (15.8 percent). Cer-
did not apply for bank credit because of concerns about
tain segments of the population, including l ower-income
being turned down increased slightly between 2017 and
households, less-educated households, older households,
2019. This increase holds even after changes in income and
and Black households, also applied at lower rates than
other characteristics of U.S. households between 2017 and
other segments. Lower-income households, Black house-
2019 were accounted for.
holds, working-age disabled households, and house-
81
holds with volatile income were more likely to have been
Bank Credit Demand Measures by Bank Account
Ownership and Household Characteristics
denied bank credit or not to have been given as much
Table 7.4 shows measures of bank credit demand by
or not to have applied for bank credit because of concerns
selected household characteristics. Unbanked house-
about being turned down.
credit as requested (among households that had applied)
holds applied for bank credit at a substantially lower rate
Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies
Savings can help households better manage unexpect-
rates by household characteristics and for selected
ed expenses or emergencies, such as a sudden illness,
confidence intervals.)
job loss, or home or car repairs. The absence of savings
can sometimes be a barrier to financial stability and
In 2019, rates of saving for unexpected expenses
resilience, particularly for consumers with uneven or
or emergencies continued to be much lower among
low incomes. To gain insight into these issues, house-
unbanked households than among banked house-
holds were asked whether they set aside any money in
holds. Figure 7.7 shows that in 2019, 26.0 percent of
the past 12 months that could be used for unexpected
unbanked households saved for unexpected expenses
expenses or emergencies, even if the funds were later
or emergencies, compared with 66.4 percent of banked
spent. Households were prompted to consider only
households. However, the proportion of unbanked
funds that could have been easily spent, if necessary,
households that saved for unexpected expenses or
and not retirement or other long-term savings.82
emergencies was higher in 2019 than in previous
years.83
In 2019, 64.2 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months,
up from 56.3 percent in 2015 and 57.8 percent in 2017.
Figure 7.7 Rates of Saving for Unexpected Expenses
or Emergencies by Bank Account Ownership and Year
(Percent)
As in previous years, rates of saving for unexpected
expenses or emergencies in 2019 varied by house-
60.4
58.9
66.4
hold characteristics. For example, savings rates were
lower among lower-income households, less-educated
households, older households, Black households,
20.2
Hispanic households, American Indian or Alaska
Native households, and working-age disabled households. Across population segments, however, savings
rates increased broadly between 2015 and 2019. (See
17.4
26.0
Unbanked
Banked
2015
2017
2019
Appendix Table E.14 for detailed estimates of savings
See Table 3.4 for the list of household characteristics. The wording of the survey question on whether a household did not apply for bank credit because of
concerns about being turned down changed slightly from 2017 to 2019. See Appendix 2 for details.
82
The question allows for funds to be later spent because a household might have experienced an unexpected expense or emergency that required the
household to draw on its savings. In the 2015 and 2017 surveys, households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies were asked where they kept
the money, selecting from a number of options, among which were savings accounts, checking accounts, and in the home or with family or friends. As
discussed in Appendix 2, this follow-up question was not repeated in the 2019 survey.
83
The 2015 and 2017 surveys found that unbanked households that saved kept their savings primarily in the home or with family or friends, whereas banked
households that saved kept their savings primarily in savings or checking accounts.
81
52 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Table 7.4 Bank Credit Demand Measures by Bank Account Ownership and Household Characteristics, 2019
For All Households, Row Percent
Applied
(Percent)
Among Households That Had Applied,
Share That Were Denied
or Not Given as Much Credit
as Requested
(Percent)
Did Not Apply Because
of Concerns About Being
Turned Down
(Percent)
15.1
17.1
6.3
Unbanked
2.8
NA
9.9
Banked
15.8
16.7
6.1
6.7
32.0
8.8
$15,000 to $30,000
8.8
34.3
8.5
$30,000 to $50,000
13.1
21.7
8.1
$50,000 to $75,000
16.0
17.3
6.8
At Least $75,000
20.4
11.3
3.7
No High School Diploma
7.6
29.3
6.8
High School Diploma
11.5
21.2
7.0
Some College
15.5
22.0
8.4
College Degree
18.8
11.2
4.2
15 to 24 Years
20.7
20.2
9.8
25 to 34 Years
20.3
20.4
9.4
35 to 44 Years
16.7
16.4
7.5
45 to 54 Years
17.6
17.5
7.2
55 to 64 Years
14.4
15.0
5.9
65 Years or More
8.7
13.4
2.7
Black
11.0
26.1
10.9
Hispanic
14.4
22.7
8.8
Asian
17.1
16.1
3.8
American Indian or Alaska Native
15.7
NA
10.3
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NA
NA
NA
White
15.8
14.7
4.9
Two or More Races
17.9
NA
14.1
Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
13.1
28.6
11.8
Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64
17.7
16.4
6.9
Income Was About the Same Each Month
14.2
15.6
4.9
Income Varied Somewhat From Month to Month
17.9
19.5
10.7
Income Varied a Lot From Month to Month
18.6
27.2
14.6
Characteristics
All
Bank Account Ownership
Family Income
Less Than $15,000
Education
Age Group
Race/Ethnicity
Disability Status
Monthly Income Volatility
Notes: NA indicates that the sample size is too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Tables E.8–E.10 for estimates by other
household characteristics.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 53
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Postscript: Potential Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic on Household Use of Banking and
Financial Services
Overview
imately two-thirds of this decline was associated with
As this report is being written, changes in the labor mar-
changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S.
ket and financial landscape resulting from the COVID-19
households between 2011 and 2019.
pandemic are still unfolding, and the full effects of the
pandemic are far from known. However, early evidence
Unbanked rates have been consistently higher
has shown a rapid and dramatic increase in the unem-
among certain segments of the population, including
ployment rate. Even individuals who did not lose their
lower-income households, unemployed households,
job may be working fewer hours and may therefore have
and households with volatile income. In 2019, rough-
reduced income. For the self-employed, revenue may be
ly one-quarter of households with less than $15,000 in
lost as economic conditions worsen.
income were unbanked, and the unbanked rate among
unemployed households was almost four times as high
As the next subsection indicates, one effect of these
as the unbanked rate among employed households. The
conditions is likely to be an increase in the unbanked rate
unbanked rate in 2019 among households with income
from its level just before the pandemic.
that varied from month to month was almost 50 percent
higher than the unbanked rate among households with
The pandemic is also presenting particular challenges
income that was about the same each month.
to households that rely on paper instruments to conduct
financial transactions; that need or want to visit bank
Of particular relevance to current economic condi-
branches; that do not have an adequate savings cush-
tions, the 2013 survey found that one in three house-
ion; or that do not have access to responsible, affordable
holds (34.1 percent) that became unbanked in the past
credit.
12 months experienced either a significant income
loss or a job loss that contributed to their becoming
Potential Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the
Unbanked Rate
unbanked.84
The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to contribute to a rise
Taken together, these data suggest that the unbanked
in the rate of unbanked households, meaning house-
rate is likely to rise from its level just before the
holds in which no one has a checking or savings account
pandemic.85
at a bank or credit union (i.e., bank). The unbanked rate
in 2019—5.4 percent—was the lowest since the survey
began in 2009.
Changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S.
households over time have contributed to changes in the
unbanked rate. During the Great Recession and its immediate aftermath, the unbanked rate rose from 7.6 percent
in 2009 to 8.2 percent in 2011. Approximately one-third
of this increase was associated with changes in the
socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households between
2009 and 2011. Then, from its peak in 2011 through 2019,
the unbanked rate fell by 2.8 percentage points. Approx-
Potential Challenges in Conducting Financial
Transactions, Visiting Bank Branches, Saving for
Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies, and
Obtaining Credit
Conducting Financial Transactions
The social distancing guidelines instituted in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic may make the use of cash,
paper checks, and money orders (i.e., paper instruments) to conduct financial transactions particularly challenging. Reliance on paper instruments may
make it harder for households to receive government
relief efforts. For example, households without direct
See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (October 2014), economicinclusion.gov/
surveys/2013household/documents/2013_FDIC_Unbanked_HH_Survey_Report.pdf.
85
Given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the fact that its full economic effects are not yet known, we are unable to predict the magnitude or
persistence of any increase in the unbanked rate. Because the FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services is conducted every two years, the
survey is not able to measure shorter-term fluctuations in unbanked rates.
84
54 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
deposit may experience delays in receiving government
as resolving a problem or asking about products or ser-
stimulus payments.86
vices. In 2019, 83.0 percent of banked households spoke
with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch
The 2015 and 2017 surveys, which asked households how
(i.e., visited a bank branch) in the past 12 months, and
they paid bills and received income in a typical month,
28.4 percent visited ten or more times.
showed that use of paper instruments was much more
common among unbanked households than among
Bank branch visits were prevalent among certain seg-
banked households. For example, 66.1 percent of
ments of the banked population, including rural house-
unbanked households in 2017 used cash to pay bills in
holds, older households, and households with volatile
a typical month, compared with 13.4 percent of banked
income. For example, in 2019, 87.7 percent of rural banked
households. Unbanked households received income in
households visited a branch, and 41.6 percent visited ten
a variety of ways, but the most prevalent method was by
or more times. Because rural households have lower rates
paper check or money order (45.4 percent in 2017), fol-
of home internet and smartphone access, they may find
lowed by cash (26.5 percent in 2017). In a typical month,
it harder to reduce their reliance on branches. In 2019,
about half of the unbanked households that received
14.8 percent of rural banked households had neither
income by paper check or money order used a nonbank
smartphone access nor home internet access, compared
check casher to get the funds. For banked households,
with 7.2 percent of urban banked households and 5.8 per-
by far the most prevalent method of receiving income
cent of suburban banked households. These findings
was direct deposit into a bank account (90.8 percent
suggest that for many banked households, branches and
in 2017).
the range of services they provide play an important role.
Nonbank P2P payment services could facilitate some
Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies and
Obtaining Credit
87
88
payments electronically that households would otherwise execute with paper instruments. In 2019, however,
only 8.8 percent of unbanked households used a nonbank
P2P payment service, compared with 32.3 percent of
The economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic
may particularly affect households without an adequate
savings cushion or without access to responsible, afford-
banked households.
able credit. In 2019, 35.8 percent of households did not
save for unexpected expenses or emergencies. More-
Visiting Bank Branches
over, 37 percent of adults could not cover an emergency
Social distancing guidelines may make bank branch
expense of $400 using only cash, savings, or a credit
v isits more challenging.
card paid in full on their next statement.90 As a result,
many households may need credit to handle unexpected
Physical access to bank branches remains important
changes in income and expenses. In 2017, however, one in
despite the increase in the use of mobile banking and the
five households (19.7 percent) likely did not have a credit
decline in the use of bank tellers for account access.
score, which could make it harder for these households to
89
Households may rely on bank branches not only to access
obtain credit.91
an account but also for a variety of other activities, such
Individuals eligible for an Economic Impact Payment authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) but without
direct deposit information on file with the Internal Revenue Service may have received their payment by paper check or prepaid card. Some individuals
that received a paper check may have used a nonbank check casher to get the funds. As of May 31, 2020, 120.1 million payments were made by direct deposit,
36.6 million by paper check, and 3.6 million by prepaid card; see U.S. Government Accountability Office, COVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response
and Recovery Efforts, Publication No. GAO-20-625 (June 25, 2020), 219, gao.gov/assets/710/707839.pdf.
87
As discussed in Appendix 2, questions on bill payment and income receipt in a typical month were not repeated in the 2019 survey.
88
Use of cash for paying bills in a typical month was also higher among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger households, Black
households, Hispanic households, American Indian or Alaska Native households, working-age disabled households, and households with volatile income.
89
Use of mobile banking as a primary method of bank account access increased sharply, rising from 15.6 percent of banked households in 2017 to
34.0 percent of banked households in 2019. At the same time, use of bank tellers as a primary method of account access decreased from 24.3 percent in 2017
to 21.0 percent in 2019.
90
See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019, Featuring Supplemental Data from April
2020 (May 2020), federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2019-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202005.pdf.
91
The 2017 survey included questions to capture the full range of credit products that are included on credit records with the nationwide credit reporting
agencies. Households that did not have at least one of these credit products in the past 12 months were likely not to have a credit score. For the list of credit
products, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. As discussed in Appendix 2,
questions on many of these credit products were not repeated in the 2019 survey.
86
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 55
Certain population segments, including unbanked
example, in 2019, nearly three in four unbanked house-
households, lower-income households, less-educated
holds (74.0 percent) did not save for unexpected expenses
households, Black households, Hispanic households,
or emergencies, and in 2017, 80.2 percent of unbanked
American Indian or Alaska Native households, and
households likely did not have a credit score, which could
working-age disabled households, were less likely to save
make it harder for these households to access responsi-
or to have access to responsible, affordable credit. For
ble, affordable credit.
56 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Appendix 1. FDIC Technical Notes
The data for this report were collected through an
The 2019 instrument was developed in conjunction with
FDIC-sponsored supplement (Supplement) to the Current
experts from a nationally recognized survey research
Population Survey (CPS) for June 2019. The CPS, con-
firm. Consumer focus groups were conducted to assist
ducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor
in question development, and the survey instrument
Statistics (BLS), is a monthly survey with about 59,000
underwent two rounds of cognitive testing. For a detailed
households selected for interview each month. The sur-
description of the 2019 revisions, see Appendix 2.
vey is based on a scientific sample that is representative
Because of changes in the questionnaire, direct com-
of the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, aged
parisons between 2019 and prior-year estimates are not
15 or older.
possible in some cases.
The CPS is the primary source of information on the labor
Eligibility and Exclusions
force characteristics of the U.S. population, including
All households that participated in the June 2019 CPS
employment, unemployment, and earnings statistics. It
were eligible to participate in the Supplement. However,
also collects data on a variety of demographic character-
only CPS respondents that specified they had some level
istics, such as age, sex, race, marital status, and educa-
of participation in their household finances and that
tional attainment. Additional information about the CPS
responded “yes” or “no” to whether someone in their
is provided on the Census Bureau’s website.1
household had a checking or savings account (question
B20) were considered Supplement respondents.4
The CPS sample consists of independent samples in each
state and the District of Columbia.2 The sample size for
CPS Response Rate and Coverage Ratio
each state is set to meet specific precision requirements
For the June 2019 CPS, a statistical sample of 59,320 sur-
for the unemployment rate estimate.3
vey-eligible households was selected from the sampling
frame.5 Of these households, 48,863 participated in the
2019 Supplement
CPS, resulting in an 82 percent response rate. There were
The sixth Supplement was conducted in June 2019.
10,457 nonrespondent eligible households, most of which
Previous Supplements were conducted in January 2009,
refused to participate (83 percent). The remaining 17 per-
June 2011, June 2013, June 2015, and June 2017. A primary
cent consisted of households where (a) no one was home
purpose of the Supplement is to estimate the percentage
at the time of the interview, (b) the household respondent
of U.S. households that are “unbanked” and to identi-
was temporarily absent, (c) the household could not be
fy the reasons why. The Supplement has also collected
located, (d) language barriers prevented the interview, or
information since 2009 on household use of a variety of
(e) other reasons. Because of the availability of transla-
bank and nonbank financial transaction services and
tors for many languages, only one percent of nonrespon-
credit products. The Supplement survey instrument used
dents (106 households) did not participate as a result of
in 2019, attached as Appendix 3, included approximately
language barriers.
60 questions designed to provide this information.
See, for example, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 77 (October 2019), census.gov/programs-surveys/
cps/methodology/CPS-Tech-Paper-77.pdf.
2
California and New York State are each divided into two areas that have independent sample designs: Los Angeles County and the remainder of California,
and New York City (five boroughs) and the remainder of New York State.
3
The precision targets that are the basis for the sample design of the CPS are provided in Chapter 2-2 of U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey: Design
and Methodology, Technical Paper 77.
4
CPS respondents that specified they had some level of participation in their household finances but that did not answer or responded “don’t know” to
question B20 would have also been considered Supplement respondents if they had used a bank prepaid card at the time of the survey (i.e., had responded
“yes” to questions P10, PW10D, and PBUSE). However, no CPS respondent fell into this category. CPS respondents involved in their household finances
include respondents in households where adults had separate finances or where the respondent was the only adult in the household. For households where
adults shared finances or had a mix of shared and separate finances, respondents were asked to specify how much they participated in their household
financial decisions. Only those that reported having at least some level of participation were considered to be involved in their household finances.
5
For details on the sampling frame, refer to the technical documentation for the June 2019 Supplement, available at census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/
technical-documentation/complete.html.
1
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 57
Coverage ratios for the CPS measure the percentage of
responded “don’t know,” or dropped out of the Sup-
persons in the target universe (the U.S. civilian nonin-
plement before the question was administered (i.e., the
stitutional population, aged 15 or older) that are included
household broke off).9 Breakoffs were the most common
in the sampling frame. The overall coverage ratio for
source of item nonresponse.
6
the June 2019 CPS was 89 percent. The missing 11 percent
(i.e., undercoverage) consists of three groups: (a) persons
The Census Bureau implemented “hot deck” alloca-
residing in households that are not in the CPS sam-
tion for nearly all missing values in the Supplement.
pling frame, (b) noninstitutional persons not residing
For a household with a missing value to a given ques-
in households at the time the CPS was conducted, and
tion, hot deck allocation replaced the missing value
(c) household residents that were not listed as household
with a response to the same question provided by a
members for the CPS for various reasons. The coverage
household with similar characteristics, known as the
ratios varied across demographic groups. For example,
donor household. In general, the characteristics used
among women aged 15 or older, the coverage ratio was
to identify donor households should be associated with
94 percent for Whites, 80 percent for Blacks, and 87 per-
the outcome variable, Y, and with the indicator variable
cent for Hispanics.
for whether Y is missing. Identifying donors according
to these criteria reduces both the bias and the variance
Supplement Response Rate
of household estimates.10 Examples of variables used
Of the 48,863 households that participated in the CPS,
to select donor households in the 2019 Supplement
32,904 (67 percent) also participated in the Supplement
included household bank account ownership, house-
(i.e., were Supplement respondents). Taking into account
hold income, and the race and age of the householder/
the nonresponse to the CPS, the overall response rate for
reference person (i.e., the person that owns or rents
the Supplement was 55 percent.
the home).
CPS and Supplement Weights
Some missing values were not imputed with hot deck
The weights calculated by the Census Bureau for the
allocation but were instead allocated according to an
CPS and the Supplement were adjusted to account for
edit rule. For example, an edit rule was applied to house-
both nonresponse and undercoverage. These adjustments
holds with (a) a missing value for having accessed a bank
help correct any biases in estimates because of nonre-
account with a bank teller in the past 12 months (ques-
sponse and undercoverage, so that results are represen-
tion BA10A) and (b) a response of “no” for having visited
tative of the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population,
a bank branch in the past 12 months (question BR10). For
aged 15 or older.7
these households, the missing value for question BA10A
was set to “no.”
Supplement Item Nonresponse and Imputation
In the 2019 Supplement, nonresponse to individual
For nearly all questions, item nonresponse due to a brea-
survey questions (i.e., item nonresponse) was addressed
koff, a response of “don’t know,” or a refusal was treat-
through imputation, consistent with the Census Bureau’s
ed as a missing value and was imputed.11 For questions
treatment of missing values in the CPS.8 For a given
A20 (satisfaction with banks) and A40 (clarity of banks’
Supplement question, item nonresponse occurred when a
communications about account fees), “don’t know” was
Supplement respondent refused to answer the question,
considered a valid response. Therefore, missing values to
The coverage ratio is the weighted number of persons in a demographic group (after weights are adjusted to account for household nonresponse) divided
by an independent count of persons in that demographic group (obtained from the 2010 Census and updated with data on the components of population
change, including births, deaths, and net migration).
7
For details on the weighting procedure, refer to the technical documentation for the June 2019 Supplement, available at census.gov/programs-surveys/
cps/technical-documentation/complete.html. The household weight is generally the weight of the householder/reference person; however, if the
householder/reference person is a married male, the spouse’s weight is used.
8
A description of the methodology used by the Census Bureau to impute missing values in the CPS is provided in Chapter 3-4 of U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 77.
9
As mentioned earlier, 67 percent of the households that participated in the CPS were Supplement respondents. The remaining households (i.e., Supplement
nonrespondents) had missing values for all Supplement questions. These households, which were not assigned a Supplement weight, did not have missing
values imputed.
10
See Rebecca R. Andridge and Roderick J. A. Little, A Review of Hot Deck Imputation for Survey Non-response, International Statistical Review 78, No. 1
(2010), 40-64, dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-5823.2010.00103.x.
11
The raw dataset, available at census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/data.html, contains an allocation flag for each Supplement question. For example,
HXP10 is the allocation flag for question P10. Each allocation flag takes the value of -1 if the household is not in the universe for the Supplement question,
one if the household has an allocated value (i.e., a missing value was imputed with hot deck allocation or allocated according to an edit rule), or two if the
household does not have an allocated value (i.e., no missing value).
6
58 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
these questions due to a breakoff or refusal were imput-
In addition to presenting estimated proportions, the
ed to one of the four explicit answer choices detailed on
report includes estimated numbers of unbanked and
the questionnaire or to “don’t know.” Supporting the
banked households. The number of households for a
inclusion of “don’t know” as a valid response for these
given category is estimated as the sum of the weights of
questions, unbanked households were much more likely
the sample households in that category. For the entire
to respond “don’t know” to these questions than they
Supplement sample of 32,904 respondent households,
were to other Supplement questions. Moreover, quali-
the sum of the household weights is roughly 131.2 mil-
tative research conducted by the FDIC found that many
lion, which would be an estimate of all U.S. households
unbanked households lacked familiarity with banks.12
as of June 2019. The Housing Vacancy Survey, another
survey related to the CPS that uses household controls
Missing values in previous Supplements were not imput-
to produce household weights, provided an estimate
ed. The analysis presented in previous survey reports
of 122.3 million as the number of households in June
handled item nonresponse in different ways. In some
2019.15 This difference (131.2 million versus 122.3 million)
cases, households with a missing value were dropped
is because household weights prepared by the Census
when computing an estimate, while in other cases,
Bureau for the CPS and for the Supplement are general-
households with a missing value were retained and
ly the reference person weights and are not adjusted to
reported as “unknown.” The 2019 survey report contains
align with household count controls. Household count
many estimated changes in outcome variables between
controls were not used to adjust household weights
2017 and 2019. To avoid bias in these estimates for cases
because the CPS is a person-level survey rather than a
where missing values had been retained in previous
household-level survey; therefore, population controls
survey years, missing values for earlier survey years were
were used only in the preparation of person weights. As a
dropped from the analysis in the 2019 report.
result, the sum of household weights for a category tends
13
to be somewhat higher than the actual household count
Analysis of Supplement Survey Results
for the category.
Estimating the Share and Number of Unbanked Households
Using Supplement survey results, households were clas-
Assigning Household Characteristics
sified as unbanked if they responded “no” to question
This report also contains a number of tables for which
B20, “Do you or anyone else in your household have a
unbanked rates and other household statistics are
checking or savings account now?” The proportion of
computed for subgroups defined by a particular socio-
U.S. households that were unbanked was estimated by
economic or demographic characteristic. The house-
dividing the sum of the weights of the household respon-
hold classification of a socioeconomic or demographic
dents that were identified as being unbanked by the sum
variable that is defined at the person level rather than
of the weights of all household respondents. For estimat-
the household level (e.g., race/ethnicity, education, or
ed proportions of unbanked households for demographic
employment status) is based on the socioeconomic or
subgroups, the same computational approach was used
demographic classification of the householder/reference
and applied to respondent households in the subgroup.
person.16
14
See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bank Efforts to Serve Unbanked and Underbanked Consumers: Qualitative Research (May 25, 2016), fdic.gov/
consumers/community/research/QualitativeResearch_May2016.pdf.
13
In the 2019 report, missing values for prepaid card use; nonbank money order, check cashing, and international remittance use; mobile phone,
smartphone, and home internet access; and overall nonbank credit use and specific nonbank credit product use (i.e., pawn shop loan, payday loan, tax
refund anticipation loan, rent-to-own service, and auto title loan use) were dropped for 2017 and 2015. For the primary method used to access bank
accounts, households with missing values for methods used to access bank accounts (but not on the primary method) were dropped in previous reports.
In the 2019 report, missing values for the primary method used to access bank accounts for 2017 and 2015 were retained to preserve consistency with
estimates in previous reports; dropping these missing values had an immaterial effect on the estimates. Likewise, for bank branch visits, households
with missing values for having visited a bank branch (but not on the frequency of bank branch visits) were dropped in the 2017 report (the first time these
questions were asked). In the 2019 report, missing values for the frequency of bank branch visits for 2017 were retained to preserve consistency with
estimates in the 2017 report; dropping these missing values had an immaterial effect on the estimates.
14
Of the 32,904 households that participated in the Supplement, 1,611 were unbanked. The skip patterns in the Supplement survey instrument (see
Appendix 3) were such that certain questions were not asked of the 40 unbanked households that used a bank prepaid card at the time of the survey (i.e.,
unbanked households that responded “yes” to questions P10, PW10D, and PBUSE) but were asked of the remaining unbanked households. Accordingly, the
analyses of previous and recent bank account ownership (questions UB10 and UB15), interest in having a bank account (question UB50), and reasons for not
having a bank account (questions UB55 and UB60) in section 3 excluded the aforementioned 40 unbanked households. The analyses of satisfaction with
banks (question A20) and clarity of banks’ communications about account fees (question A40) in section 3 also excluded these 40 households because they
were asked different versions of the questions than other unbanked households (see Appendix 3).
15
See U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey Table 13a Monthly Household Estimates: 2000 to Present, Vintage 2019 (July 28,
2020), census.gov/housing/hvs/data/hist_tab_13a_v2019.xlsx.
16
In a few cases, the householder/reference person is classified as an ineligible respondent for the CPS, but another eligible household resident participated
in the CPS and in the Supplement. In these cases, we use the attributes of the eligible respondent to characterize the household.
12
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 59
The Census Bureau classifies households into differ-
•
“Two or More Races household” refers to a household
ent household types. For instance, a family household
for which the householder identifies as two or more
is a household that includes two or more people related
races and not Hispanic or Latino.
by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together,
along with any unrelated people that may be residing
there. Detailed definitions regarding household types
can be found in the technical documentation on the
CPS website.17
Classifying Working-Age Households With Disabilities
This report provides unbanked and other estimates for
the population of households with disabilities. As in the
2013 report (the first time these estimates were presented) and later reports, households are categorized as fol-
Classifying Household Race and Ethnicity
lows: if the householder is between the ages of 25 and 64
Consistent with U.S. Office of Management and Budget
and either (a) indicates “yes” to any of the six-question
(OMB) standards for the classification of race and eth-
disability sequence in the CPS or (b) is classified as “not
nicity and with CPS tabulations of race and ethnicity,
in labor force—disabled,” the household is classified as
households are classified into the following racial and
“disabled, aged 25 to 64.”19 If the householder is between
ethnic categories:18
the ages of 25 and 64 and neither condition (a) nor
•
(b) above is met, the household is classified as “not dis-
“Hispanic household” refers to a household for which
the householder identifies as Hispanic or Latino
regardless of race.
•
“Black household” refers to a household for which the
householder identifies as Black or African American
alone and not Hispanic or Latino.
•
“Asian household” refers to a household for which the
householder identifies as Asian alone and not Hispanic or Latino.
•
•
the ages of 25 and 64, the household is classified as “not
applicable (not aged 25 to 64).”20
Metropolitan Statistical Area Definitions
This report presents estimates of unbanked rates and
other outcomes of interest for larger metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). MSA delineations are established by
OMB. OMB published a revised set of MSA delineations in
“American Indian or Alaska Native household” refers
February 2013, based on data from the 2010 Census and
to a household for which the householder identifies
the 2006–2010 American Community Surveys. The 2013
as American Indian or Alaska Native alone and not
delineations superseded the earlier delineations based on
Hispanic or Latino.
2000 Census data, first established by OMB in June 2003.21
“Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander household” refers to a household for which the householder
identifies as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
alone and not Hispanic or Latino.
•
abled, aged 25 to 64.” If the householder is not between
“White household” refers to a household for which the
householder identifies as White alone and not Hispanic or Latino.
As discussed in the technical documentation to the June
2015 Supplement, the Census Bureau phased the 2013
MSA delineations into the CPS (and phased out the 2003
delineations) over the period May 2014 to July 2015.22
Housing units first included in the CPS before May
2014 were assigned metropolitan area codes based on
the 2003 delineations. These metropolitan area codes
consisted of metropolitan New England city and town
area (NECTA) codes for New England states (Connecticut,
See census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html.
For the OMB standards for the classification of race and ethnicity, see Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity, Federal Register 62, No. 210 (October 30, 1997), 58782-58790, govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf. For information on CPS
tabulations of race and ethnicity, see bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm. All estimates presented in the 2019 report, including 2017 and 2015 estimates provided
for comparative purposes, use these racial and ethnic categories. Estimates presented in the 2009–2017 reports used different racial and ethnic categories;
see Appendix 1 of the 2017 report, available at economicinclusion.gov/downloads/2017_FDIC_Unbanked_HH_Survey_Report.pdf.
19
Specifically, we use the variable PEMLR (monthly labor force recode) to determine if the respondent is not in the labor force because of a disability. Refer
to the CPS Data Dictionary for detail on the six-question disability sequence, available at census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/cps/cps-basic.html.
20
A universally accepted method to identify the population with disabilities does not exist. Key estimates from the Supplement, such as the unbanked
rate among disabled households, are qualitatively similar using alternative disability measures. For more information, see Appendix I of the 2013 report,
available at economicinclusion.gov/surveys/2013household/documents/2013_FDIC_Unbanked_HH_Survey_Appendix.pdf.
21
For the February 2013 delineations, see Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin Number 13-01 (February 28, 2013), whitehouse.gov/sites/
whitehouse.gov/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf. For the June 2003 delineations, see Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin Number 03-04
(June 6, 2003), whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/bulletins_b03-04.pdf. In each year between 2003 and 2009, OMB published minor revisions to
the MSA delineations, based on the Census Bureau’s annual population estimates.
22
The technical documentation for the June 2015 Supplement is available at census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/complete.html.
17
18
60 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
boundary change. All MSA names in the tables, however,
and Vermont) and MSA codes for other states.23 Hous-
reflect the 2013 delineations.
ing units first included in the CPS in May 2014 or later
were assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 2013
Statistical Precision of Estimates
delineations. These metropolitan area codes consist-
To indicate the precision of certain estimates, standard
ed only of MSA codes, as housing units in New England
errors were calculated based on the variation of the esti-
were given MSA codes as part of the phase-in of the 2013
mates across a set of 160 sample replicates provided by
delineations.
the Census Bureau. Details of the calculation of standard errors based on sample replicates (and on the CPS
For the 2017 and 2019 survey data, all housing units were
methodology in general) are available from the Census
assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 2013
Bureau.26
delineations. For the 2015 survey data, approximately
three-quarters of housing units were assigned metro-
Estimated differences discussed in this report are sig-
politan area codes based on the 2013 delineations, while
nificant at the 10 percent level, unless noted otherwise.
the remaining housing units were assigned metropolitan
That is, if the population difference were zero, then the
area codes based on the 2003 delineations. To facilitate
probability of obtaining estimates having the observed
MSA-level estimates using the 2015 survey data, a hous-
difference or a larger difference would be no more than
ing unit with an obsolete 2003 MSA code was assigned
10 percent and could be considerably less. For example,
the corresponding 2013 MSA code. A housing unit with a
the estimated difference in the proportions of U.S. house-
NECTA code was assigned the 2013 MSA code that com-
holds that were unbanked between 2019 (5.4 percent) and
prised the majority of the NECTA population.25 Overall,
2017 (6.5 percent) is -1.1 percentage points. The estimated
less than three percent of housing units in the 2015 sur-
standard error of this difference (computed using the 160
vey data were affected by these adjustments.
replicates as described above) is 0.2 percentage points.
24
Under the assumption that the true difference in the
For the 2013 and earlier survey data, all housing units
unbanked rate between 2019 and 2017 is zero, the prob-
were assigned metropolitan area codes based on the
ability of observing the -1.1 percentage point difference
2003 delineations. For these survey years, metropoli-
in our sample data is less than 0.1 percent (the p-value
tan area estimates are based on the 2003 delineations.
reported by statistical software is 0.000).
Because of changes in geographic boundaries (e.g., the
addition or subtraction of a county), some metropoli-
Certain 2019 report appendix tables include 90 percent
tan area estimates that use 2015–2019 survey data are
confidence intervals in addition to point estimates. The
not directly comparable to the corresponding metro-
confidence interval is one way to describe the uncer-
politan area estimates that use 2013 and earlier survey
tainty surrounding the estimate. For example, as shown
data. In the appendix tables (published separately on
in Appendix Table A.2, the estimated proportion of U.S.
economicinclusion.gov), a tilde (~) next to an MSA name
households that were unbanked in 2019 is 5.4 percent,
indicates that the MSA was affected by a geographic
and the 90 percent confidence interval around this estimate ranges from 5.1 to 5.6 percent.
Unlike MSAs, which are composed of one of more full counties or county equivalents, NECTAs are composed of cities and towns and often do not follow
county boundaries.
24
In the 2015 survey data, some housing units were located in counties populous enough to be identified, but no MSA code was assigned because these
counties were not in an MSA based on the 2003 delineations (all of these housing units were first included in the CPS before May 2014). Because some of
these counties were in an MSA based on the 2013 delineations, a 2013 MSA code was assigned to housing units located in such counties.
25
For example, housing units with a NECTA code for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH, were assigned the MSA code for Boston-Cambridge-Newton,
MA-NH. For each NECTA code in the 2015 survey data, at least 80 percent of the 2010 Census NECTA population (and the estimated July 1, 2015, NECTA
population) resided within the corresponding MSA, and for the majority of the NECTAs this number was at least 90 percent.
26
For a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate standard errors based on sample replicates, see Chapter 2-4 of U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 77.
23
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 61
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Appendix 2. 2019 Revisions to the FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
The FDIC revised the survey instrument based on les-
replaced a question on the likelihood of opening a bank
sons learned from the administration of the 2017 survey,
account in the next 12 months (2017 Q7).
feedback received in response to the 2017 survey results,
and an interest in topics not covered in past surveys. For
Three response options on reasons for not having a bank
example, the 2019 survey included new questions on use
account (2017 Q5, 2019 UB55) were revised:
of nonbank bill payment services and peer-to-peer or
•
person-to-person (P2P) payment services in the past
was changed to “Because bank account fees are too
12 months; frequency of use of nonbank money orders,
check cashing, bill payment services, and international
remittances; satisfaction with banks; and perceptions of
unpredictable.”
•
several questions from the 2017 survey were dropped.
“Because banks do not offer products or services you
need” was changed to “Because banks do not offer
the clarity of banks’ communications about account fees.
To accommodate new questions in the 2019 survey,
“Because bank account fees are unpredictable”
products and services you need.”
•
“Because you do not have enough money to keep
in an account” was changed to “Because you don’t
For example, the 2019 survey did not include questions
have enough money to meet minimum balance
on use of a mobile phone for specific banking activities
requirements.”
in the past 12 months (e.g., remote deposit capture) or on
income receipt or bill payment in a typical month.
Specific revisions to the 2019 survey are described below.
Bank Account Ownership
The question on previous bank account ownership (2017
Q 3, 2019 UB10), which had been asked of all unbanked
households in 2017, was asked in 2019 only of unbanked
households that did not use a bank prepaid card at the
time of the survey.
A question on which adults in the household had a bank
account was broadened to include bank prepaid cards if
the household used a bank prepaid card at the time of
the survey (2017 Q2a, 2019 B30). A follow-up question on
the specific types of accounts owned by each adult (2017
Q2b) was dropped, as was a question on whether a banked
household did not have an account at some point in the
past 12 months (2017 Q2e).
Interest in Having a Bank Account and Reasons for Not
Having a Bank Account
All questions in 2017 that had been asked of unbanked
households were asked in 2019 of unbanked households
that did not use a bank prepaid card at the time of the
survey.
The 2019 survey included a new question on interest
Response options on the main reason for not having a
bank account (2017 Q6, 2019 UB60) were revised to be
consistent with 2019 UB55.
Prepaid Cards
The introductory language for the questions on prepaid
card use was revised. The second sentence, “Prepaid
cards allow you or others, like relatives or a government agency, to load funds that can later be spent,”
was changed to “Prepaid cards allow you or others, like
relatives, an employer, or a government agency, to load
or reload funds that can later be spent.” The fourth (final)
sentence, “I am not asking about gift cards or debit cards
linked to a checking account,” was shortened to “I am
not asking about gift cards.”
The survey question on prepaid card sources (2017 Q111,
2019 PW10) included a revised list of sources and a new
question structure for 2019 (separate questions for each
source instead of “mark all that apply”).
The 2019 survey responses were:
•
•
•
•
Employer to pay salary or wages
Government agency
Place or website that is not a bank
Bank branch or bank website
in having a bank account (2019 UB50). This question
62 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
The 2017 survey responses were:
On satisfaction, unbanked households that had previ-
•
•
•
•
•
•
ously been banked and that did not use a bank prepaid
Bank location or bank’s website
card at the time of the survey were asked, “Now, think
Store or website that is not a bank
about your experience with the bank your household
Government agency
most recently had an account with. How satisfied were
you with your bank?” Banked households, as well as
Employer payroll card
unbanked households that used a bank prepaid card at
Family or friends
the time of the survey, were asked, “Now, think about
Other (Specify)
your experience with your household’s primary bank.
How satisfied are you with your bank?”
For households that used bank prepaid cards in the past
12 months, a new, follow-up question asked whether
On clarity, unbanked households that did not use a bank
these cards were used at the time of the survey (2019
prepaid card at the time of the survey were asked, “Now,
PBUSE). For households that used government prepaid
think about banks in general. How clearly do you think
cards in the past 12 months, a follow-up question on the
banks communicate account fees?” Banked households,
reasons for having these cards (2017 Q112) was dropped.
as well as unbanked households that used a bank prepaid
card at the time of the survey, were asked, “How clearly
Nonbank Financial Transaction Services
do you think your bank communicates account fees?”
The 2019 survey included new questions on use of nonbank bill payment services and P2P payment services
Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts
in the past 12 months. Specifically, all households were
The survey question on methods used to access bank
asked whether they paid bills through a service like
accounts in the past 12 months (2017 Q2g, 2019 BA10)
Western Union or MoneyGram (2019 NBBP10). Households
included a reworded list of methods and a new question
were instructed not to include services from a bank. In
structure for 2019 (separate questions for each method
addition, all households were asked whether they used a
instead of “mark all that apply”).
website or app that is not a bank to send or receive money
within the United States (2019 NBP2P). Examples provid-
The 2019 survey responses were:
ed were PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App.
•
•
•
•
•
•
While the 2017 survey asked about use of bank and nonbank international remittances in the past 12 months
(2017 Q130 and 2017 Q135), the 2019 survey asked only
about use of nonbank international remittances in the
past 12 months (2019 NBRM10).
Visiting a bank teller
Using an ATM or bank kiosk
Calling the bank
Using a computer or tablet
Using a mobile phone including an app
Any other way (Specify)
For households that used nonbank money orders, check
cashing, bill payment services, or international remit-
The 2017 survey responses were:
tances in the past 12 months, new, follow-up ques-
•
•
•
tions asked whether these services were used often,
sometimes, or rarely (2019 NBMO15, 2019 NBCC15, 2019
NBBP15, and 2019 NBRM15). For households that used
nonbank money orders often or sometimes, a new, follow-up question asked whether the money orders were
used to pay bills (2019 NBMO16).
Bank teller
ATM or bank kiosk
Telephone banking through phone call or automated
voice or touch tone
•
Online banking with a laptop, desktop computer, or
tablet such as an iPad
•
Satisfaction and Clarity
The 2019 survey included new questions on satisfaction
with banks (2019 A20) and clarity of banks’ communica-
Mobile banking with text messaging, mobile app, or
internet browser or email on a mobile phone
•
Other (Specify)
tions about account fees (2019 A40). Two versions of each
question were administered depending on the population
Additionally, 2019 BA10 was asked of banked households,
segment.
unbanked households that used a bank prepaid card at
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 63
the time of the survey, and unbanked households that
•
2017 Q163: “In the past 12 months, did any lender
had a bank account in the past 12 months, while 2017 Q2g
or creditor turn down your or someone else in your
was asked only of banked households. Response options
household’s request for new credit or not give you as
on the main account access method (2017 Q2h, 2019 BA15)
much credit as you applied for?”
were revised to be consistent with 2019 BA10.
•
2019 CA15: “Did the lender or creditor turn down this
request for new credit or not give as much credit as
A question on use of a mobile phone for specific banking
you or someone in your household applied for?”
activities in the past 12 months (2017 Q80) was dropped.
The question on whether a household thought about
Bank and Nonbank Credit
The question on use of tax refund anticipation loans in
the past 12 months (2017 Q124, 2019 CNBTAX) was slightly modified: the clause, “or use a tax preparation service
in order to receive your tax refund faster than the IRS
would provide it,” in the 2017 question was replaced with
applying for a new credit card or a personal loan or line
of credit at a bank but did not because of concerns about
being turned down (2017 Q164, 2019 CA20) was also
reworded:
•
that you or someone else in your household thought
“This is a way to receive your tax refund faster than the
about applying for a new credit card, or a personal
IRS would provide it.” A question on use of other types
loan or line of credit at a bank, but changed your mind
of loans or lines of credit from a payday lender, auto title
lender, pawn shop, or check casher in the past 12 months
(2017 Q127) was dropped.
2017 Q164: “Was there any time in the past 12 months
because you thought you might be turned down?”
•
2019 CA20: “Was there any time in the past 12 months
that you or anyone in your household thought about
Questions on whether a household had a store credit card;
applying for a new credit card, or a personal loan or
auto loan; mortgage, home equity loan, or home equity
line of credit at a bank, but didn’t apply because of
line of credit; student loan; or other personal loans or
concerns of being turned down?”
lines of credit from a company other than a bank in the
tions, the wording of questions on whether a household
Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies, Income
Receipt and Bill Payment in a Typical Month, and Falling
Behind on Bill Payments
had a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover
For households that saved for unexpected expenses
credit card (2017 Q1600a, 2019 CCC10) or a personal loan
or emergencies in the past 12 months, the follow-up
or line of credit from a bank (2017 Q1600f, 2019 CPL10) in
question on where the savings were kept (2017 Q171) was
the past 12 months were changed somewhat.
dropped.
past 12 months (2017 Q1600b-e and 2017 Q1600g) were
dropped. To accommodate the removal of these ques-
27
For households that had applied for a new credit card
Questions on income receipt and bill payment in a typ-
or a personal loan or line of credit at a bank in the past
ical month (2017 Q140, 2017 Q141, and 2017 Q150) and on
12 months, the follow-up question on whether the
whether a household fell behind on bill payments in the
household was turned down or not given as much credit
past 12 months (2017 Q181) were dropped.
as applied for (2017 Q163, 2019 CA15) was reworded:
27
The wording of 2019 CCC10 and 2019 CPL10 is very similar to the wording of 2015 Q160 and 2015 Q161, respectively.
64 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
How America Banks:
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Appendix 3. 2019 Survey Instrument
This month we are asking some additional questions about household finances.
[B10 is asked only of households with more than one adult.]
B10. Which of the following best describes how adults in your household handle finances?
Share all finances
[CONTINUE]
Share some finances
[CONTINUE]
Share no finances at all
[GO TO B20]
I AM THE ONLY ADULT IN THE HOUSEHOLD (VOLUNTEERED)
[GO TO B20]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[B15 is asked only of households with adults that share all or some finances.] (B10=1,2)
B15. How much do you participate in making financial decisions for your household?
A lot
[CONTINUE]
Some [CONTINUE]
Not at all
[TERMINATE]
DK/REFUSE [TERMINATE]
Now I’m going to ask some questions about accounts that you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household)
might have at banks, including credit unions.
[B20 is asked of all households.]
B20. Do you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) have a checking or savings account now?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
Now I have a question about prepaid cards. Prepaid cards allow you or others, like relatives, an employer, or a government agency, to load or reload funds that can later be spent. Prepaid cards also allow you to withdraw cash from
ATMs. I am not asking about gift cards.
[P10 is asked of all households.]
P10. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2018, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household)
use any prepaid cards?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[IF B20=1, GO TO NBMO10; IF B20=2, GO TO UB10; ELSE TERMINATE]
DK/REFUSE
[IF B20=1, GO TO NBMO10; IF B20=2, GO TO UB10; ELSE TERMINATE]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 65
[PW10 is asked only of households that used a prepaid card in the past 12 months.] (P10=1)
PW10. The next questions ask where prepaid cards that your household used in the past 12 months came from.
A. Did any of those prepaid cards come from an employer to pay salary or wages?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
B. Did any of those prepaid cards come from a government agency?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
C. Did any of those prepaid cards come from a place or a website that is not a bank? Do not include gift cards or cards that
can only be used at a particular store or website.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
D. Did any of those prepaid cards come from a bank branch or a bank website? I am asking about prepaid cards that were
opened at a bank or a bank website (IF PW10A=1 OR PW10B=1 OR PW10C=1 FILL:, which are different from the other prepaid cards I’ve just asked you about).
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[IF B20=1, GO TO NBMO10; IF B20=2, GO TO UB10; ELSE TERMINATE]
DK/REFUSE
[IF B20=1, GO TO NBMO10; IF B20=2, GO TO UB10; ELSE TERMINATE]
[PBUSE is asked only of households that used a bank prepaid card in the past 12 months.] (PW10D=1)
PBUSE. Thinking only about the prepaid cards that came from a bank branch or a bank website, do you (IF OTHERS
AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) still use a prepaid card from a bank?
YES
[GO TO NBMO10]
NO
[IF B20=1, GO TO NBMO10; IF B20=2, GO TO UB10; ELSE TERMINATE]
DK/REFUSE
[IF B20=1, GO TO NBMO10; IF B20=2, GO TO UB10; ELSE TERMINATE]
[UB10 is asked only of households that do not have a bank account and do not still use a bank prepaid card.] (B20=2 AND
NOT(PBUSE=1))
UB10. You mentioned that (IF NOT(OTHERS AGE≥15) FILL: you don’t have a bank account.) (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: no
one in your household has a bank account.) Have you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) ever
had a bank account?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO UB50]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO UB50]
66 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
[UB15 is asked only of households that do not have a bank account and do not still use a bank prepaid card but had a bank
account in the past.] (UB10=1)
UB15. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2018, have you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) had
a bank account?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[UB50 is asked only of households that do not have a bank account and do not still use a bank prepaid card.] (B20=2 AND
NOT(PBUSE=1))
UB50. How interested are you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) in having a bank account?
Very interested
[CONTINUE]
Somewhat interested
[CONTINUE]
Not very interested
[CONTINUE]
Not at all interested
[CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[UB55 is asked only of households that do not have a bank account and do not still use a bank prepaid card.] (B20=2 AND
NOT(PBUSE=1))
UB55. There are different reasons people might not have a checking or savings account. Do any of the following reasons
apply to you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household)? Do you not have an account…
A1. Because bank hours are inconvenient?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
A2. Because bank locations are inconvenient?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
B1. Because bank account fees are too high?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
B2. Because bank account fees are too unpredictable?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 67
C. Because banks do not offer products and services you need?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
D. Because you don’t trust banks?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
E. Because you don’t have enough money to meet minimum balance requirements?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
F. Because avoiding a bank gives more privacy?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
G. Because you cannot open an account due to personal identification, credit, or former bank account problems?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
H. Because of some other reason?
YES (Specify)
[CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
68 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
[UB60 is asked only of households that selected more than one reason in UB55A1-H.]
UB60. What is the main reason why no one in your household has an account? (Read only answers marked in UB55A1-H.
Mark only one.)
Bank hours are inconvenient
[CONTINUE]
Bank locations are inconvenient
[CONTINUE]
Bank account fees are too high
[CONTINUE]
Bank account fees are too unpredictable
[CONTINUE]
Banks do not offer products and services you need
[CONTINUE]
Don’t trust banks
[CONTINUE]
Don’t have enough money to meet minimum balance requirements
[CONTINUE]
Avoiding a bank gives more privacy
[CONTINUE]
Cannot open an account due to personal identification, credit, or former bank account
problems
[CONTINUE]
Some other reason (Specify)
[CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
The next few questions are about other financial products or services that you might have used in the past 12 months.
[NBMO10 is asked of all households.]
NBMO10. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) go to some place other
than a bank to purchase a money order?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO NBBP10]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO NBBP10]
[NBMO15 is asked only of households that used a nonbank money order in the past 12 months.] (NBMO10=1)
NBMO15. Was this often, sometimes, or rarely?
OFTEN [CONTINUE]
SOMETIMES [CONTINUE]
RARELY
[GO TO NBBP10]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO NBBP10]
[NBMO16 is asked only of households that used nonbank money orders often or sometimes in the past 12 months.] (NBMO15=1,2)
NBMO16. Were these money orders used to pay bills?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 69
[NBBP10 is asked of all households.]
NBBP10. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) pay bills through a service like Western Union or MoneyGram? Do not include services from a bank.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO NBCC10]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO NBCC10]
[NBBP15 is asked only of households that used a nonbank bill payment service in the past 12 months.] (NBBP10=1)
NBBP15. Was this often, sometimes, or rarely?
OFTEN [CONTINUE]
SOMETIMES [CONTINUE]
RARELY [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE
[CONTINUE]
[NBCC10 is asked of all households.]
NBCC10. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) go to some place other
than a bank to cash a check?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO NBRM10]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO NBRM10]
[NBCC15 is asked only of households that used a nonbank check casher in the past 12 months.] (NBCC10=1)
NBCC15. Was this often, sometimes, or rarely?
OFTEN [CONTINUE]
SOMETIMES [CONTINUE]
RARELY [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE
[CONTINUE]
[NBRM10 is asked of all households.]
NBRM10. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) send money to family or
friends living outside of the US through a service that is not a bank?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO NBP2P]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO NBP2P]
[NBRM15 is asked only of households that sent money abroad through a nonbank service in the past 12 months.] (NBRM10=1)
NBRM15. Was this often, sometimes, or rarely?
OFTEN [CONTINUE]
SOMETIMES [CONTINUE]
RARELY [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE
70 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
[CONTINUE]
[NBP2P is asked of all households.]
NBP2P. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) use a website or an app
that is not a bank to send or receive money within the US? Examples are PayPal, Venmo, or Cash App.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[CNBPDL is asked of all households.]
CNBPDL. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) take out a payday loan or
payday advance from a provider other than a bank?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[CNBPWN is asked of all households.]
CNBPWN. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) pawn an item at a pawn
shop? Do not include selling an unwanted item to a pawn shop.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[CNBTAX is asked of all households.]
CNBTAX. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2018, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household)
take out a tax refund anticipation loan? This is a way to receive your tax refund faster than the IRS would provide it.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[CNBATL is asked of all households.]
CNBATL. Auto title loans use a car title to borrow money for a short period of time. They are NOT loans used to purchase
a car. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) take out an auto title loan?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[CNBRTO is asked of all households.]
CNBRTO. Some stores allow people to rent to own items such as furniture or appliances. We do not mean stores that offer
installment plans or layaway plans. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) rent anything from a rent-to-own store because it couldn’t be financed any other way?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 71
[Read only for households that have a bank account or still use a bank prepaid card.] (B20=1 OR PBUSE=1)
Now think about your bank accounts. (IF PBUSE=1 FILL: This includes checking, savings, and prepaid cards from
a bank.)
[B30 is asked only of households that (have a bank account or still use a bank prepaid card) and that have more than one
individual aged 15 or older.] ((B20=1 OR PBUSE=1) AND OTHERS AGE≥15)
B30. Who in your household has an account? (Enter line number.)
1-16 [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[Read only for households that do not have a bank account and do not still use a bank prepaid card but had a bank account in the
past 12 months.] (UB15=1)
Now think about your bank accounts that you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) had in the past
12 months.
[BA10 is asked only of households that have a bank account, still use a bank prepaid card, or had a bank account in the past
12 months.] (B20=1 OR PBUSE=1 OR UB15=1)
BA10. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) access an account
(IF NOT(B20=1) AND PBUSE=1 FILL:, including a prepaid card that you got at a bank,) in any of the following ways?
A. Visiting a bank teller?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
B. Using an ATM or bank kiosk?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
C. Calling the bank?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
D. Using a mobile phone, including an app?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
72 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
E. Using a computer or tablet?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
F. Any other way?
YES (Specify)
[CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[BA10X is asked only of households that (have a bank account, still use a bank prepaid card, or had a bank account in the past
12 months) and that did not indicate YES to any questions in BA10A-F.] (B20=1 OR PBUSE=1 OR UB15=1) AND (NOT(BA10A=1 OR
BA10B=1 OR BA10C=1 OR BA10D=1 OR BA10E=1 OR BA10F=1))
BA10X. In the past 12 months, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) access a bank account in
any way?
YES
[GO TO BR10]
NO
[GO TO BR10]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO BR10]
[BA15 is asked only of households that selected more than one access method in BA10A-F.]
BA15. What was the most common way that you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) accessed an
account? (Read only answers marked in BA10A-F. Mark only one.)
Visiting a bank teller?
[CONTINUE]
Using an ATM or bank kiosk?
[CONTINUE]
Calling the bank?
[CONTINUE]
Using a mobile phone, including an app?
[CONTINUE]
Using a computer or tablet?
[CONTINUE]
Other (Specify)
[CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[BR10 is asked only of households that did not access an account by visiting a bank teller.] (NOT(BA10A=1))
BR10. (IF B20=2 AND NOT(PBUSE=1) FILL: Even though you don’t currently have an account with a bank,) In the past
12 months, have you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) spoken with a teller or other employee in
person at a bank branch?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO A20]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO A20]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 73
[BR15 is asked only of households that spoke with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch in the past 12 months.]
(BA10A=1 OR BR10=1)
BR15. How many times have you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) spoken with a teller or other
employee in person at a bank branch in the past 12 months?
1 to 4 times in the past 12 months
[CONTINUE]
5 to 9 times in the past 12 months
[CONTINUE]
10 or more times in the past 12 months
[CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[A20 is asked only of households that have a bank account, still use a bank prepaid card, or had a bank account in the past.]
(B20=1 OR PBUSE=1 OR UB10=1)
A20. (IF B20=1 OR PBUSE=1 FILL: Now, think about your experience with your household’s primary bank. How satisfied
are you with your bank?) (IF UB10=1 FILL: Now, think about your experience with the bank your household most recently
had an account with. How satisfied were you with your bank?)
Very satisfied
[CONTINUE]
Somewhat satisfied
[CONTINUE]
Not very satisfied
[CONTINUE]
Not satisfied at all
[CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[A40 is asked of all households.]
A40. (IF B20=1 OR PBUSE=1 FILL: How clearly do you think your bank communicates account fees?) (IF B20=2 AND
NOT(PBUSE=1) FILL: Now, think about banks in general. How clearly do you think banks communicate account fees?)
Very clearly
[CONTINUE]
Somewhat clearly
[CONTINUE]
Not very clearly
[CONTINUE]
Not clearly at all
[CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
The next few questions are about how people borrow money, and types of credit products or loans that you
might have.
[CCC10 is asked of all households.]
CCC10. In the past 12 months, have you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) had a credit card from
Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover? Please do not include debit cards.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
74 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
[CPL10 is asked of all households.]
CPL10. In the past 12 months, have you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) had a personal loan or
line of credit from a bank? Do not include student loans, or loans taken out to make major purchases like a house or car.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[CA10 is asked of all households.]
CA10. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2018, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) apply
for a new credit card, or a personal loan or line of credit at a bank?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO CA20]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO CA20]
[CA15 is asked only of households that applied for a new credit card, or a personal loan or line of credit at a bank, in the past
12 months.] (CA10=1)
CA15. Did the lender or creditor turn down this request for new credit or not give as much credit as you (IF OTHERS
AGE≥15 FILL: or someone in your household) applied for?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[CA20 is asked of all households.]
CA20. Was there any time in the past 12 months that you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) thought
about applying for a new credit card, or a personal loan or line of credit at a bank, but didn’t apply because of concerns of
being turned down?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
Now I’m going to ask about saving money.
[S10 is asked of all households.]
S10. Even if you later spent it, did you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) set aside any money in the
past 12 months that could be used for unexpected expenses or emergencies? I’m only asking about funds that could be
easily spent if necessary, and am not asking about retirement or other long-term savings.
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 75
Now I have a few final questions.
[H10 is asked of all households.]
H10. Which best describes your household’s income over the past 12 months? (Mark only one.)
Income is about the same each month
[CONTINUE]
Income varies somewhat from month to month
[CONTINUE]
Income varies a lot from month to month
[CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE
[CONTINUE]
[H20 is asked of all households.]
H20. Do you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) currently own or have regular access to a
mobile phone?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO
[GO TO H40]
DK/REFUSE
[GO TO H40]
[H30 is asked only of households that have a mobile phone.] (H20=1)
H30. Are any of these mobile phones a smartphone with features to access the Internet, send emails, and download apps?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
[H40 is asked of all households.]
H40. Do you (IF OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) currently have regular access to the Internet at
home, using a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer?
YES [CONTINUE]
NO [CONTINUE]
DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE]
76 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
FDIC-012-2020
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | FDIC_2019_SurveyReport-book |
| Subject | household finance, survey, use of banking, financial services, bank account ownership, banked, unbanked, prepaid cards, nonbank |
| Author | FDIC |
| File Modified | 2020-10-01 |
| File Created | 2020-10-01 |