2015
 

FDIC National Survey of 

Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households 

OCTOBER 20, 2016 

Members of the FDIC Unbanked/ 

Underbanked Survey Study Group 

Susan Burhouse 

Karyen Chu 

Keith Ernst 

Ryan Goodstein 

Alicia Lloro 

Gregory Lyons 

Joyce Northwood 

Yazmin Osaki 

Sherrie Rhine 

Dhruv Sharma 

Jeffrey Weinstein 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection 

ECONOMICINCLUSION.GOV 

2015 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

 

 

 

 

1. Executive Summary 

Public confidence in the banking system stems in part from 

how effectively banks serve the needs of the nation’s diverse 

population. Accordingly, the FDIC is committed to expanding 

Americans’ access to safe, secure, and affordable banking 

services. The FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is one contribution to this end. 

To assess the inclusiveness of the banking system, and in 

partial response to a statutory mandate, the FDIC has conducted the survey biennially since 2009.1

 The most recent 

survey was administered in June 2015 in partnership with the 

U.S. Census Bureau, collecting responses from more than 

36,000 households. The survey provides estimates of the proportion of U.S. households that do not have an account at an 

insured institution, and the proportion that have an account 

but obtained (nonbank) alternative financial services in the 

past 12 months. The survey also provides insights that may 

inform efforts to better meet the needs of these consumers 

within the banking system. 

This executive summary presents key results from the 2015 

survey and summarizes the implications of these results for 

policymakers, financial institutions, and other stakeholders 

who are working to improve access to mainstream financial 

services. 

Banking Status of U.S. Households 

•	 In 2015, 7.0 percent of U.S. households were “unbanked,” 

meaning that no one in the household had a checking or 

savings account. The unbanked rate fell by 0.7 percentage 

points from 2013 (7.7 percent) and was lower in 2015 than 

in any of the past years of the survey. 

»	 Approximately 9.0 million U.S. households, made up 

of 15.6 million adults and 7.6 million children, were 

unbanked in 2015.2 

Figure ES.1 National Estimates, Household Unbanked 

Rates by Year 

7.6

8.2 7.7

7.0

2009 2011 2013 2015 

•	 An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households were “underbanked” in 2015, meaning that the household had an 

account at an insured institution but also obtained financial services and products outside of the banking system. 

Specifically, a household is categorized as underbanked if 

it had a checking or savings account and used one of the 

following products or services from an alternative financial services (AFS) provider in the past 12 months: money 

orders, check cashing, international remittances, payday 

loans, refund anticipation loans, rent-to-own services, 

pawn shop loans, or auto title loans. 

»	 Approximately 24.5 million U.S. households, composed 

of 51.1 million adults and 16.3 million children, were 

underbanked in 2015. 

»	 The underbanked rate was essentially unchanged from 

2013 (20.0 percent). 

•	 68.0 percent of households in 2015 were “fully banked,” 

meaning that the household had a bank account and did 

not use AFS in the past 12 months. This was a 1.0 percentage point increase from the fully banked rate in 2013 

(67.0 percent). 

1

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.

 2Adults are defined as people aged 16 and older. This is a lower-bound estimate of the number of unbanked adults in the United States, because it is based on the 

assumption that all adults residing in a “banked” household are banked in the sense that they may benefit from the account. A banked household may have one or 

more unbanked adults; such adults are not included in the 15.6 million adults estimate cited in this report. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 | 2015 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Changes in Banking Status 

• Approximately half of the decline in the unbanked rate 

from 2013 to 2015 can be attributed to improvements in 

the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households. 

However, even after accounting for these changes, the 

remaining decline in the unbanked rate across years was 

statistically significant.3 

• Consistent with previous results, banking status varied 

considerably across the U.S. population in 2015. For 

example, unbanked and underbanked rates were higher 

among the following groups: lower-income households, 

less-educated households, younger households, black 

and Hispanic households, and working-age disabled 

households.4 

• Reflecting the decline in the unbanked rate at the national level, unbanked rates fell between 2013 and 2015 for 

many segments of the population. 

» In particular, unbanked rates declined substantially among groups that had high unbanked rates in 

2013, including households with incomes of less than 

$15,000, younger households, and black and Hispanic 

households. Despite these improvements, unbanked 

rates within these groups remained substantially higher 

than the overall unbanked rate in 2015. 

» Some segments of the population that experienced 

declines in unbanked rates also experienced declines 

in underbanked rates. This was true for black households, for whom the unbanked rate decreased from 

20.6 percent in 2013 to 18.2 percent in 2015. The 

underbanked rate also decreased among black households, resulting in a large increase in the fully banked 

rate from 40.0 percent in 2013 to 45.5 percent in 2015.5 

• Unbanked rates increased between 2013 and 2015 for 

some groups. In particular, among Asian households the 

unbanked rate increased from 2.2 to 4.0 percent. Underbanked rates also increased among Asian households, 

leading to a substantial decline in the fully banked rate 

(from 73.4 to 67.2 percent). 

Income Volatility and Banking Status 

The 2015 survey added a new question to examine the potential influence of income volatility on the ways households 

manage their finances. 

• More than one in five U.S. households had income that 

“varied somewhat from month to month” or “varied a lot 

from month to month” (over the past 12 months). Unbanked and underbanked rates were higher among these 

households. 

• Unbanked rates among households with income that 

varied somewhat or a lot from month to month were 8.7 

and 12.9 percent, respectively, compared to 5.7 percent 

among households with income that “was about the same 

each month.” 

• An additional 26.6 and 30.9 percent of households with 

income that varied somewhat or a lot, respectively, were 

underbanked, compared to 19.1 percent among those 

with steady monthly income. 

• Even among households with higher levels of income, 

unbanked and underbanked rates were higher when that 

income was volatile. For example, among households with 

annual income between $50,000 and $75,000, unbanked 

rates among those with income that varied somewhat or 

a lot were 2.9 and 4.1 percent, respectively, compared to 

less than 1 percent for those with steady monthly income. 

3

A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes from 2013 to 2015 in the distribution of households across the household-level characteristics 

shown in Appendix Table A.2. Changes in the socioeconomic characteristics of households (income, employment status, homeownership status, and educational 

attainment) between 2013 and 2015 accounted for about half of the difference in unbanked rates between 2013 and 2015. Adding additional controls for the remaining 

demographic characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2 had little effect on the remaining difference.

 4For characteristics that vary at the person-level, such as race, age, education, and employment, the characteristics of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., 

“householder”) are used to represent the household. For convenience, abbreviated language is used when referring to certain household characteristics. For example, 

the term “white household” refers to a household in which the householder has been identified as white, non-black, non-Hispanic, and non-Asian. The phrase 

“working-age disabled” refers to a household in which the householder has a disability and is aged 25 to 64. See Appendix 1 for additional details. 

5

As noted in Table 3.3, the decline in the underbanked rate among black households is not statistically significant at the 10 percent level, although the increase in the 

fully banked rate is statistically significant. 

Year Number of Households 

(1000s) 

Unbanked 

(Percent) 

Underbanked 

(Percent) 

Fully banked 

(Percent) 

Banked, underbanked 

status unknown 

(Percent) 

2011 120,408 8.2 20.1+ 68.8+ 2.9+ 

2013 123,750 7.7 20.0 67.0 5.3 

2015 127,538 7.0 19.9 68.0 5.0 

Notes: The + symbol indicates that the 2011 estimates of the underbanked, fully banked, and underbanked status unknown rates are not directly comparable to the 

2013 and 2015 estimates. Specifically, the 2011 definitions do not incorporate use of auto title loans because this information was not collected in the 2011 survey. 

Table ES.1 National Estimates, Household Banking Status by Year 

For all households, row percent 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons Households Were Unbanked 

As in previous years, the 2015 survey asked unbanked households about the reasons why they did not have an account. 

The 2015 estimates were qualitatively quite similar to those 

from the 2013 survey. 

•	 The most commonly cited reason was “Do not have 

enough money to keep in an account.” An estimated 57.4 

percent of unbanked households cited this as a reason 

and 37.8 percent cited it as the main reason. 

•	 Other commonly cited reasons were “Avoiding a bank 

gives more privacy,” “Don’t trust banks,” “Bank account 

fees are too high,” and “Bank account fees are unpredictable.” Of these, the most cited main reasons were “Don’t 

trust banks” (10.9 percent) and “Bank account fees are too 

high” (9.4 percent). 

•	 A higher proportion of unbanked households that previously had an account cited high or unpredictable fees as 

reasons for not having an account (33.8 and 31.5 percent, 

respectively), compared to those that never had an account (23.1 and 17.7 percent, respectively). 

Perceptions of Banks’ Interest 

The 2015 survey included a new question asked of all households: “How interested are banks in serving households like 

yours?” The survey results revealed pronounced differences 

across households. 

•	 Overall, 76.6 percent of households perceived that banks 

were “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in serving 

households like theirs. Approximately 16 percent thought 

that banks were “not at all interested” in serving households like theirs, and the perceptions of the remaining 8 

percent were unknown. 

•	 Unbanked households were substantially less likely than 

underbanked or fully banked households to perceive that 

banks were interested in serving households like theirs. 

More than half (55.8 percent) thought that banks were 

not at all interested, compared to roughly 17 percent of 

underbanked households and 12 percent of fully banked 

households. 

»	 The perception that banks were not at all interested 

in serving households like theirs was similar among 

unbanked households that previously had an account 

(54.2 percent) and those that never had an account 

(58.7 percent). 

Figure ES.2 Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account, Unbanked Households, 2015 (Percent) 

13.4

10.3

8.5

3.3

9.0

2.0

15.4

1.3

16.4

5.7

24.0

1.9

27.7

9.4

28.0

10.9

28.5

3.4

57.4

37.8

Other reason 

Inconvenient hours 

Inconvenient locations 

Banks do not offer needed products or services 

ID, credit, or former bank account problems 

Account fees unpredictable 

Account fees too high 

Don't trust banks 

Avoiding bank gives more privacy 

Do not have enough money to keep in account 

Cited 

Main 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure ES.3 “How Interested Are Banks in Serving Households Like Yours?” by Banking Status, 2015 (Percent) 

76.6 15.8 5.5 2.1

30.9 55.8 9.1 4.2

79.4 16.6 4.0

83.9 12.0 4.0

Very or somewhat Not at all Unknown: Don't know/Refused Unknown: Dropped out 

All 

Unbanked 

Underbanked 

Fully banked 

Notes: The category “Unknown: Don’t know/Refused” includes households that were asked the survey question but did not select a response (“very interested,” 

“somewhat interested,” or “not at all interested”). The category “Unknown: Dropped out” includes households that dropped out of the survey before this question. 

»	 Among unbanked households that thought banks were 

not at all interested in serving households like theirs, 

only 17.3 percent were very or somewhat likely to open 

an account in the next 12 months compared to 50.4 

percent among unbanked households that perceived 

banks to be very or somewhat interested in serving 

households like theirs. 

Banked Households: Types of Accounts 

•	 Among banked households in 2015, patterns of savings 

and checking account ownership were generally similar to 

previous years. 

»	 Almost all banked households had a checking account 

(98.0 percent), while roughly three in four (77.8 percent) 

had a savings account. 

»	 Savings account ownership was substantially lower 

among certain segments of the population, including 

households with lower income and lower education, 

black and Hispanic households, and working-age 

disabled households. 

Banked Households: Methods Used to Access 

Accounts 

•	 Use of online and mobile banking to access accounts increased substantially from 2013 to 2015, while use of bank 

tellers decreased. However, use of bank tellers remained 

quite prevalent, particularly among segments of the population that had higher unbanked and underbanked rates. 

» The proportion of banked households that used online 

banking to access their accounts in the past 12 months 

increased from 55.1 percent in 2013 to 60.4 percent in 

2015. Further, 31.9 percent of banked households in 

2015 used mobile banking, compared to 23.2 percent 

in 2013. 

» The proportion of households that used a bank teller to 

access their accounts in the past 12 months fell from 

78.8 percent in 2013 to 75.5 percent in 2015. 

» Use of bank tellers was especially prevalent among 

lower-income households, less-educated households, 

older households, and households located in rural 

areas. 

» Slightly less than half (49.2 percent) of banked households used a physical channel (bank branch or ATM/ 

kiosk) as the primary method for accessing a bank 

account. 

4 | 2015 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Figure ES.4 All Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts by Year (Percent) 

78.8

Bank teller 

75.5

69.6

ATM/Kiosk 

69.8

Telephone 

23.2

55.1

60.4

26.1

27.0

2013 

2015 

Online 

Mobile 

31.9

1.0

Other 

1.1

Figure ES.5 Primary Method Used to Access Bank Accounts by Year (Percent) 

32.2

Bank teller 

5.7

3.3

3.0

24.4

21.0

2013 

2015 

28.2

ATM/Kiosk 

Telephone 

32.9

Online 

36.9

Mobile 

9.5

0.8

Other 

0.9

5 
6 | 2015 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepaid Cards	 Alternative Financial Services 

Some consumers use general purpose reloadable prepaid 

cards to address their financial transaction needs. Similar to a 

checking account, these cards can be used to pay bills, withdraw cash at ATMs, make purchases, deposit checks, and 

receive direct deposits. These cards may have been obtained 

from sources such as a bank location or bank website, a nonbank store or website, a government agency, or an employer. 

Many, although not all, such cards store funds in accounts 

eligible for deposit insurance.6 

•	 Between 2013 and 2015, the proportion of households 

that used a prepaid card in the past 12 months increased 

from 7.9 percent to 9.8 percent. This growth occurred 

broadly across socioeconomic and demographic groups. 

•	 Consistent with results from the 2013 survey, prepaid card 

use in 2015 was higher among lower-income households, 

less-educated households, younger households, black 

households, and working-age disabled households. 

•	 Households with income that varied somewhat or a lot 

from month to month were more likely to use prepaid 

cards in 2015 (13.5 percent and 15.5 percent, respectively) 

than households with income that was about the same 

each month (9.2 percent). This pattern held for households 

of all income levels. 

•	 Use of prepaid cards was most prevalent among unbanked households. An estimated 27.1 percent of unbanked households used a prepaid card in 2015, compared to 15.4 percent of underbanked households and 6.9 

percent of fully banked households. 

»	 Unbanked households that used prepaid cards were 

more likely to have had a bank account at some point 

in the past: 64.1 percent of unbanked households that 

used prepaid cards had a bank account in the past 

versus 42.3 percent of unbanked households that did 

not use prepaid cards. 

•	 Households that used prepaid cards obtained the cards 

from a variety of sources. The most common source was a 

store or website that is not a bank (42.6 percent of households that used prepaid cards obtained cards from this 

source), followed by a bank location or a bank’s website 

(17.3 percent). 

•	 In 2015, almost one in four households (24.0 percent) used 

AFS in the past 12 months.7 

»	 Use of transaction AFS continued to be substantially 

more common than use of credit AFS: 20.2 percent of 

households used transaction AFS, and 7.7 percent of 

households used credit AFS.8 

•	 Consistent with previous reports, use of AFS was much 

higher among unbanked households than banked households. 

»	 The proportion of unbanked households that used 

AFS, however, fell by about 10 percent between 2013 

and 2015. This decline was attributable to decreased 

use of transaction AFS among the unbanked. 

•	 Households with volatile income were more likely to use 

AFS. 

»	 Use of transaction AFS among households with 

income that varied somewhat or a lot from month to 

month was 27.7 and 34.3 percent, respectively, compared to 18.9 percent among households with income 

that was about the same each month. Similarly, use of 

credit AFS was substantially higher among households 

with more volatile income. 

»	 These patterns held even among households with 

higher levels of income. 

Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies 

Savings can help households better manage unexpected 

expenses or emergencies, such as health issues or major automobile repairs. The absence of savings can sometimes be a 

barrier to financial stability and resilience, particularly for consumers with uneven or low incomes. To gain insight into these 

issues, the 2015 survey included new questions on whether 

households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies 

and the methods they used. 

•	 Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved; that is, they set 

aside money in the past 12 months that could be used for 

unexpected expenses or emergencies, even if the funds 

were later spent. 

»	 Rates of saving for unexpected expenses or emergencies were lower among certain segments of the popu6

Unless noted otherwise, estimates of prepaid card use are based on the 12 months before the survey. Households were instructed that the survey questions about 

prepaid cards were “not asking about gift cards or debit cards linked to a checking account.” 

7

Unless noted otherwise, all estimates of AFS use are based on the 12 months before the survey. 

8

For the purposes of this report, transaction AFS include the following nonbank products and services: money orders, check cashing, and international remittances. 

Credit AFS include the following nonbank products and services that may be used in lieu of bank credit: payday loans, refund anticipation loans, rent-to-own services, 

pawn shop loans, and auto title loans. 
 

 

 

 

lation, including lower-income households, less-educated households, black and Hispanic households, and 

working-age disabled households. 

»	 Unbanked households saved for unexpected expenses 

or emergencies at a much lower rate than underbanked 

and fully banked households: 20.2 percent of unbanked households saved for this purpose, compared 

to 55.2 percent of underbanked households and 60.0 

percent of fully banked households. 

•	 Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used 

savings method followed by checking accounts: more 

than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these 

accounts. About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that 

saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or 

friends. 

»	 The use of formal (e.g., savings or checking accounts) 

and informal (e.g., in the home, or with family or 

friends) savings methods varied by household characteristics. For example, among households that saved 

for unexpected expenses or emergencies, lower-income households, less-educated households, and 

working-age disabled households were less likely to 

keep savings in a savings account and more likely to 

maintain savings in the home, or with family or friends. 

»	 Unbanked households generally saved using informal 

methods, while underbanked and fully banked households generally saved using formal methods. Unbanked households that saved primarily kept savings 

in the home, or with family or friends, and on prepaid 

cards. In contrast, underbanked and fully banked 

households that saved primarily used savings and 

checking accounts. 

70.1

24.5

10.5

0.5 3.0 0.7

67.8

12.6

65.7

24.7

16.7

0.7

73.4

25.2

7.0

0.1

All Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

Savings account Checking account In home, or with family or friends Prepaid card 

Figure ES.6 Selected Savings Methods for Households That Saved by Banking Status, 2015 (Percent) 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 | 2015 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Bank and Nonbank Credit 

To gain a more complete picture of household credit behavior, 

the 2015 survey included a new series of questions on bank 

credit, in addition to questions about nonbank credit asked in 

previous surveys. Specifically, households were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they had a credit card or a personal 

loan or line of credit from a bank (i.e., “bank credit”), applied 

for bank credit, were denied bank credit or not given as much 

credit as they applied for (i.e., “denied”), or thought about 

applying for bank credit but did not because they thought 

they might be turned down (i.e., “felt discouraged about applying”). Households were also asked whether they fell behind 

on bills in the past 12 months. 

• Most households had bank credit, though a significant 

share of households used nonbank credit. 

» 67.9 percent of households had bank credit, and 63.8 

percent of households had bank credit only. 

» 8.2 percent of households used nonbank credit. 

About half of these households had a mix of bank and 

nonbank credit (4.0 percent), and the other half (4.1 

percent) had nonbank credit only. 

» The remaining 28.0 percent of households did not use 

any of the credit products asked about in the survey. 

Figure ES.7 Bank and Nonbank Credit, 2015 (Percent) 

No credit 

28.0 

Nonbank 

credit only 

4.1 

Bank and 

nonbank credit 

4.0 

Bank 

credit only 

63.8 

Note: Households may have used credit products that were not asked about in 

the survey (e.g., mortgages, auto loans, certain nonbank installment loans, and 

informal loans from family or friends). 

• Similar shares of underbanked and fully banked households had credit: 74.9 percent of underbanked and 75.6 

percent of fully banked households had at least one of the 

credit products asked about in the survey. 

• Many underbanked households had credit from nonbank 

sources. While 42.1 percent of underbanked households 

had bank credit only, nearly one in five (18.5 percent) had 

both bank and nonbank credit and 14.4 percent had only 

nonbank credit. 

• Lower-income, less-educated, black, Hispanic, and working-age disabled households were more likely to use nonbank credit only or not to use any of the credit products 

asked about in the survey. 

• Households with volatile income were more likely to use 

nonbank credit, either on its own or in addition to bank 

credit. 

» 7.9 percent of households with income that varied a 

lot from month to month used only nonbank credit, 

and 7.6 percent used both bank and nonbank credit. 

In comparison, 3.4 percent of households with income 

that was about the same each month used nonbank 

credit only and 3.5 percent had credit from both banks 

and nonbanks. 

» Income volatility was associated with greater nonbank 

credit use even for higher-income households. 

• Use of nonbank credit was strongly associated with 

whether the household was denied bank credit, felt 

discouraged about applying for bank credit, or reported 

falling behind on bills. 

» Among households that applied for bank credit and 

were denied, 24.7 percent used nonbank credit (15.2 

percent had both bank and nonbank credit, while 9.5 

percent used nonbank credit only). In comparison, only 

7.7 percent of households that were not denied (or did 

not apply) used nonbank credit. 

» Similarly, 28.7 percent of households that were discouraged about applying for bank credit used nonbank 

credit, compared to 6.8 percent among those that were 

not discouraged about applying. Also, 24.7 percent 

of households that fell behind on bills used nonbank 

credit, compared to 4.8 percent among those that did 

not fall behind on bills. 

• For the purposes of this report, we classify a household as 

having credit needs that were not fully met by banks if the 

household was denied bank credit, felt discouraged about 

applying for bank credit, or used any nonbank credit product. Applying this convention, 13.7 percent of households 

had credit needs that were not fully met by banks. About 

half (52.5 percent) of these households reported that they 

stayed current on bills. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure ES.8 Bank and Nonbank Credit by Banking Status, 2015 (Percent) 

75.7

25.1

24.4

16.4

14.4

2.2

18.5

5.7

42.1

Fully banked 75.6

Underbanked 

Unbanked 

No credit Nonbank credit only Bank and nonbank credit Bank credit only 

Note: Households may have used credit products that were not asked about in the survey (e.g., mortgages, auto loans, certain nonbank installment loans, and informal 

loans from family or friends). 

How Households Conduct Their Financial 

Transactions in a Typical Month 

To learn more about the extent to which households use 

banks and other methods to meet their financial transactions 

needs, the 2015 survey contained a number of new questions 

about the ways households pay bills and receive income in a 

typical month. 

•	 Unbanked households used a variety of methods outside 

of the banking system to pay bills and receive income. 

»	 To pay bills, 62.3 percent used cash, 35.5 percent used 

nonbank money orders, and 18.2 percent used prepaid 

cards in a typical month. The most prevalent method of 

receiving income among unbanked households was by 

paper check or money order. Among the 42.1 percent 

of unbanked households that received income in this 

way, roughly 45 percent (or 19.1 percent of all unbanked households) went to a place other than a bank 

to cash the check or money order. 

•	 Underbanked households, on the other hand, used banks 

extensively to pay bills and receive income in a typical 

month. The key difference between underbanked and fully 

banked households is that, in addition to bank methods, 

underbanked households also widely used other methods, 

particularly for paying bills. 

»	 Electronic payment from a bank account was the most 

used method of paying bills among both underbanked 

(62.3 percent) and fully banked (70.4 percent) households. Relative to the fully banked, use of personal 

checks was lower among underbanked households, 

and use of bank debit cards was higher. Direct deposit 

into a bank account was by far the most used method 

of receiving income, both for underbanked (82.0 percent) and fully banked (87.9 percent) households. 

» 27.7 percent of underbanked households paid bills 

using cash in a typical month, and 25.6 percent used 

nonbank money orders. 

» Overall, nearly half (44.9 percent) of underbanked 

households exclusively used banks to pay bills and 

receive income in a typical month. 

Implications 

The survey results presented in this report suggest implications for policymakers, financial institutions, and other stakeholders that are working to improve access to mainstream 

financial services. 

1.	 Households with volatile income have higher unbanked and underbanked rates. Bank products and 

services that enable households to better manage 

their account relationships and meet their financial 

needs when income is volatile may help these consumers open and sustain bank accounts and conduct 

a greater share of their financial transactions within 

the banking system. 

2.	 Use of smartphones to engage in banking activities continues to grow at a rapid pace. Consistent 

with implications from the 2013 survey, this growth 

presents promising opportunities to use the mobile 

platform to increase economic inclusion. At the same 

time, physical access to branches remains important. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

3.	 One in five unbanked households save for unexpected expenses, although for the most part not in 

insured depositories. Bringing these savings into 

the banking system could allow these households to 

build banking relationships that help them safeguard 

funds, enhance access to credit, and increase financial security. 

4.	 Banks may have the opportunity to help meet the 

credit needs of some households that have an unmet 

demand for bank credit. The vast majority of these 

households are banked, yet few applied for bank 

credit in the past 12 months. Many are also young. 

Banks could help meet the credit needs of these 

households by promoting the importance of building 

a credit history, incorporating nontraditional data 

into underwriting, and increasing households’ awareness of personal credit products. 

5.	 The great majority of underbanked households use 

banks to pay bills, although many also use cash and 

nonbank money orders. Efforts to encourage and 

make it easier for a range of payees to accept electronic payments, and outreach to raise awareness of 

bill pay and other electronic payments among lower-income households, may facilitate the movement 

of these transactions into the banking system. 

6.	 The majority of unbanked households think that 

banks have no interest in serving households like 

theirs, and a significant share of unbanked households do not trust banks. These findings suggest 

that understanding and addressing the sources of 

these attitudes and building trust and familiarity are 

important to attract and develop relationships with 

unbanked consumers. 

10 | 2015 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

FDIC-037-2016

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation