FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and 

Financial Services

2019 FDIC Survey

ECONOMICINCLUSION.GOV

2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | III

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Acknowledgements

How America Banks presents results from the 2019 FDIC 

Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services. 

The survey has been conducted biennially since 2009 in 

partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau.

The report was conducted under the careful direction 

of Karyen Chu of the FDIC’s Division of Insurance and 

Research. The primary authors of the report were Mark 

Kutzbach, Alicia Lloro, and Jeffrey Weinstein.

I would like to thank the many FDIC senior officials, 

staff, and contractors who provided valuable feedback, 

analytical support, research assistance, website 

development, and publication support, including 

Rosalind Bennett, Susan Burhouse, Anthony Cataldo, 

Leonard Chanin, Keith Ernst, Ryan Goodstein, 

Alexander LePore Jr., Jane Lewin, Lynne Montgomery, 

Joyce Northwood, Yazmin Osaki, Richard Schwartz, 

Dhruv Sharma, Philip Shively, Donna Vogel, and 

Sam Waxenbaum.

Finally, we thank the staff of the Current Population 

Survey (CPS) at the U.S. Census Bureau who worked 

closely with the FDIC to ensure successful execution of 

survey data collection and processing.

Diane Ellis

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 | V

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 | VII

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Preface

How America Banks presents results from the 2019 FDIC 

Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services, 

conducted in June of that year. The results therefore 

reflect a period of generally favorable economic conditions. The next survey will be fielded in June 2021, with a 

report expected in 2022. 

In light of the extraordinary economic and social disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the present 

report includes a postscript that draws on findings from 

the 2019 and earlier surveys to address possible consequences for the unbanked rate. The postscript also discusses 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 | 1

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

1. Executive Summary

1

 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.

How America Banks informs the FDIC’s mission of maintaining public confidence in the U.S. financial system. 

The findings presented in this report come from the FDIC 

Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services.

1

This survey has been conducted biennially since 2009 in 

partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau. The most recent 

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 

prepaid cards and nonbank financial transaction services, and use of bank and nonbank credit.

National Unbanked Rate

• An estimated 5.4 percent of U.S. households were 

“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 

approximately 7.1 million U.S. households. Conversely, 94.6 percent 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 

(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 

households.2

» About half of the decline in the unbanked rate 

between 2017 and 2019 was associated with 

improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances 

of U.S. households over this period. However, even 

after these improvements were accounted for, 

the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate 

across years was statistically significant.3

• Between 2011, when the unbanked rate peaked at 

8.2 percent, and 2019, the unbanked rate fell by 

2.8 percentage points, corresponding to an increase of 

approximately 3.7 million banked households.

» About two-thirds of the decline in the unbanked 

rate between 2011 and 2019 was associated with 

improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances 

of U.S. households over this period.

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 

were higher among lower-income households, 

less-educated households, Black households, Hispanic households, American Indian or Alaska Native 

Figure ES.1 National Estimates, Household Unbanked 

Rate by Year (Percent)

7.6

8.2 7.7

7.0 6.5

5.4

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
2 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

households, working-age disabled households, and 

households with volatile income.5

• For most segments of the population, unbanked rates 

in 2019 were lower than or similar to unbanked rates 

in recent years.

» Recent declines have been particularly sharp 

for Black and Hispanic households. Specifically, 

13.8 percent of Black households were unbanked 

in 2019, down from 16.8 percent in 2017 and 

18.5 percent in 2015. Among Hispanic households, 

12.2 percent were unbanked in 2019, down from 

14.4 percent in 2017 and 16.3 percent in 2015.6

Despite the improvements in unbanked rates for 

Black and Hispanic households, unbanked rates in 

2019 for these households remained substantially above the unbanked rate for White households 

(2.5 percent).

• The unbanked rate for working-age disabled households was roughly constant between 2011 and 2017: 

18.9 percent in 2011, 18.4 percent in 2013, 17.6 percent 

in 2015, and 18.1 percent in 2017. In 2019, while still 

much higher than the unbanked rate for working-age 

nondisabled households (4.5 percent), the unbanked 

rate for working-age disabled households (16.2 percent) declined to its lowest level since 2011.7

• 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.

5 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.

• Unbanked rates also varied by the metropolitan 

status of a household’s residence. In 2019, 8.1 percent 

of urban households were unbanked, compared with 

6.2 percent of rural households and 3.7 percent of suburban households.9 These unbanked rates were lower 

than in 2017.

Unbanked Households: Previous Bank Account Ownership

• As discussed in previous reports, bank account 

ownership is not static. Among unbanked households in 2019, half (50.4 percent) had had a bank 

account at some point in the past (i.e., had previously 

been banked), slightly higher than in previous years 

(47.0 percent in 2017 and 47.3 percent in 2015).

Unbanked Households: Interest in Having a Bank Account

• As shown in Figure ES.2, among unbanked households 

in 2019, more than half (56.2 percent) were not at all 

interested in having a bank account, while 24.8 percent were very or somewhat interested.

» These estimates are qualitatively similar to those 

from the 2017 survey, though changes in the wording of the survey question do not allow for direct 

comparisons.10

• 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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 3

• As illustrated in Figure ES.3, about half of unbanked 

households 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.

• “Don’t trust banks” was cited by approximately 

one-third of unbanked households as a reason for 

not having an account and was the second-most cited 

main reason.

11 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.

Unbanked Households: Satisfaction With Most Recent 

Bank and Clarity of Banks’ Communications About 

Account Fees

To complement existing questions on reasons for not 

having a bank account, the 2019 survey included new 

questions on unbanked households’ satisfaction with 

their most recent bank and on their perceptions of how 

clearly banks in general communicate account fees.11

• Among unbanked households that had previously 

been banked, 24.3 percent were very satisfied with 

their most recent bank, 30.8 percent somewhat 

Figure ES.2 Interest in Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, by Previous Bank Account Ownership, 

2019 (Percent)

4.5 13.4 17.8 64.4

11.1 20.6 20.1 48.2

7.8 17.0 18.9 56.2

Never

Banked

Previously

Banked

All

Very Interested Somewhat Interested Not Very Interested Not at All Interested

Figure ES.3 Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, 2019 (Percent)

10.4

10.4

13.9

17.8

2.4

13.0

2.2

14.1

1.9

19.6

8.0

20.5

1.6

31.3

7.3

34.2

7.1

36.0

16.1

36.3

29.0

48.9

Did Not Select a Reason

Other Reason

Bank Hours Are Inconvenient

Bank Locations Are Inconvenient

Banks Do Not Offer Needed Products and Services

Personal Identification, Credit, or

Former Bank Account Problems

Bank Account Fees Are Too Unpredictable

Bank Account Fees Are Too High

Avoiding a Bank Gives More Privacy

Don't Trust Banks

Don't Have Enough Money to Meet

Minimum Balance Requirements

Cited Main
4 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

satisfied, 14.4 percent not very satisfied, 22.8 percent 

not satisfied at all, and 7.7 percent did not know.12

• Interest in having a bank account was higher among 

unbanked households that were very or somewhat 

satisfied with their most recent bank, compared with 

unbanked households that were not very satisfied or 

not satisfied at all with their most recent bank.

• 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.

• Interest in having a bank account was higher among 

unbanked households that thought banks communicated account fees very or somewhat clearly, compared with unbanked households that thought banks 

communicated account fees not very clearly or not 

clearly at all.

Banked Households: Primary Methods Used to Access 

Bank Accounts

As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked banked 

households about the primary (i.e., most common) 

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), 

using a computer or tablet (i.e., online banking), or using 

some other method (i.e., other).

• 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 

2017 to 34.0 percent in 2019), overtaking online banking as the most prevalent primary method. (Table ES.1 

reports the finding for each primary method used to 

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 

12 “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.

among banked households (dropping from 36.9 percent 

in 2015 and 36.0 percent in 2017 to 22.8 percent in 2019).

• Use of bank tellers continued to decline, though this 

decline was modest compared with the decline in use 

of online banking, and use of bank tellers remained 

prevalent (21.0 percent in 2019).

• The changes between 2015 and 2019 described above 

occurred broadly across different segments of the 

population. These trends are consistent with households’ switching from online banking to mobile 

banking as a primary method to access their bank 

accounts.

Banked Households: Bank Branch Visits

• In 2019, 83.0 percent of banked households spoke with 

a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch 

(i.e., visited a bank branch) in the past 12 months, 

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, 

the share of banked households visiting a branch 

ten or more times declined, whereas the share of 

banked households visiting a branch one to four times 

increased.

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

Figure ES.4 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked 

Households, by Year (Percent)

14.0 17.0

30.8

36.3

18.2 18.3

35.4

28.4

0 Times 1 to 4

Times

5 to 9

Times

10 or More

Times

2017 2019

Note: For 2017, not shown are households that visited a branch but with unknown 

frequency (1.6 percent of banked households).
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 5

• Older households and households with volatile income 

were more likely to visit a branch and to visit ten or 

more times.

• Bank branch visits among banked households 

varied 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 

households visited ten or more times.

• Branch visits were prevalent even among banked 

households that used online or mobile banking as 

their primary method of account access. For example, in 2019, about four in five (79.9 percent) banked 

households that used mobile banking as their primary 

method visited a branch in the past 12 months, and 

about one in five (18.8 percent) banked households 

that used mobile banking as their primary method 

visited ten or more times.

Banked Households: Satisfaction With Primary Bank and 

Clarity of Bank’s Communication About Account Fees

The 2019 survey included new questions for banked 

households, asking about their satisfaction with their 

primary bank and about their perceptions of how clearly 

their bank communicates account fees.

13 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).

• Almost all banked households were satisfied with 

their primary bank and thought that fees were clearly 

communicated: 97.3 percent were very or somewhat 

satisfied with their primary bank, and 92.1 percent 

thought their bank communicated account fees very 

or somewhat clearly.13

• 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 

bank’s communication of account fees was clear (very 

or somewhat). Households that thought their bank 

communicated fees very or somewhat clearly were 

17.3 percentage points more likely to be very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank (98.8 percent), 

compared with households that thought their bank 

communicated fees not very clearly or not clearly at 

all (81.5 percent).

• Banked households’ satisfaction with their primary 

bank and their perceptions of how clearly their bank 

communicated account fees were consistently high 

across different segments of the population (e.g., different income and education levels). 

Figure ES.5 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked Households, by Metropolitan Status, 2019 (Percent)

20.8

17.0

12.3

38.2 38.2

29.3

18.4 18.6

16.7

22.6

26.2

41.6

0 Times 1 to 4 Times 5 to 9 Times 10 or More Times

Urban Suburban 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).
6 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

• Banked households that were not satisfied with their 

primary bank or those that thought their bank did not 

communicate account fees clearly were more likely 

to use a nonbank financial transaction service (in 

particular, at least one of the following: money orders, 

check cashing, or bill payment services) than were 

banked households that were satisfied or that did 

think fees were clearly communicated. Among households that were not very satisfied or not satisfied at 

all, 22.3 percent used at least one of those three nonbank financial transaction services, compared with 

14.9 percent of households that were very or somewhat satisfied. Among households that thought that 

fees were communicated not very clearly or not clearly 

at all, 20.1 percent used at least one of those three 

nonbank financial transaction services, compared 

with 14.7 percent of households that thought fees were 

communicated very or somewhat clearly.

Prepaid Cards

Some consumers, both banked and unbanked, use general purpose reloadable prepaid cards to conduct financial 

transactions, such as paying bills, withdrawing cash at 

ATMs, making purchases, depositing checks, and receiving direct deposits.14

• In 2019, 8.5 percent of U.S. households used prepaid 

cards in the past 12 months, down from 9.7 percent in 

2017 and 10.2 percent in 2015.15

• 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 

households, less-educated households, younger 

households, Black households, working-age disabled 

households, and households with volatile income. For 

example, 14.8 percent of Black households used prepaid cards in 2019, compared with 7.6 percent of White 

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

14 The survey questions on prepaid cards instructed households not to consider gift cards.

15 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.

Nonbank Financial Transaction Services

As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked all households about use in the past 12 months of nonbank money 

orders, check cashing, and remittances sent abroad. In 

addition, the 2019 survey was the first to include questions about two other types of nonbank financial transaction services: bill payment services (such as are offered 

by Western Union and MoneyGram) and use of a website 

or app to send or receive money inside the United States 

(examples are PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App).17 The latter 

service is known as a peer-to-peer or person-to-person 

(P2P) payment service.18

• In 2019, 11.9 percent of households used money orders, 

5.5 percent used check cashing, and 4.9 percent used 

bill payment services. Altogether, 17.2 percent of 

households used at least one of those three services 

(money orders, check cashing, or bill payment services) in the past 12 months. In addition, 5.5 percent 

of households used international remittances, and 

31.1 percent used P2P payment services.

• Between 2017 and 2019, use of money orders fell by 

2.3 percentage points and use of check cashing fell by 

0.7 percentage points.19 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 between 2017 and 2019. This increase was 

broad-based, ranging across almost all population 

segments.

• In terms of household characteristics, patterns of use 

for bill payment services were similar to the patterns 

for money orders and check cashing. Younger households, less-educated households, and Black, Hispanic, 

and American Indian or Alaska Native households 

were more likely to use these three transaction services, as were lower-income households and households 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 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 7

more, households with a college degree, younger and 

middle-aged households, and working-age nondisabled households. 

» Use of P2P payment services requires access to the 

internet with either a smartphone or a computer. 

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. 

» 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.

• 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 

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, 

and 8.8 percent used P2P payment services. 

• Among banked households, 10.2 percent used money 

orders, 4.0 percent used check cashing, and 4.4 percent used bill payment services; 15.0 percent used 

at least one of these three transaction services. In 

addition, 5.3 percent of banked households used 

international remittances, and 32.3 percent used P2P 

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 

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, 

almost nine in ten (87.1 percent) used a money 

order to pay bills.

Figure ES.6 Frequency of Use of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services, 2019 (Percent)

4.4

2.9

4.6

1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7

1.4 1.4

2.4

1.7

Money Order Check Cashing Bill Payment Service International Remittance

Often Sometimes 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.
8 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Bank and Nonbank Credit

The 2019 survey examines household use of bank credit 

and nonbank credit, focusing on products that households may use to address cash-flow imbalances, unexpected expenses, or temporary income shortfalls.20 A 

household is considered to have used bank credit if, in 

the past 12 months, it had a Visa, MasterCard, American 

Express, or Discover credit card (i.e., a credit card) or a 

personal loan or line of credit from a bank (i.e., a bank 

personal loan). A household is considered to have used 

nonbank credit if it used a rent-to-own service or a payday, auto title, pawn shop, or tax refund anticipation loan 

in the past 12 months.21

• The share of households that used bank credit 

increased from 67.9 percent in 2015 to 72.5 percent 

in 2019. The share of households that used nonbank 

credit declined from 8.1 percent in 2015 and 7.5 percent 

in 2017 to 4.8 percent in 2019.22 The decline in nonbank 

credit use between 2017 and 2019 remained large and 

statistically significant even after changes in income 

and other characteristics of U.S. households were 

accounted for. The increase in bank credit use and the 

20 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.

decline in nonbank credit use occurred broadly across 

different segments of the population.

• 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.

» 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 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 of $75,000 or more.

» Differences by race and ethnicity were also large 

and were present at all income levels (see Figure 

ES.7). For example, in 2019, even among households 

with income of $75,000 or more, about 80 percent 

of Black and Hispanic households used bank credit, 

whereas about 90 percent of White households 

did so.

Figure ES.7 Bank Credit Use by Household Income Level and Race and Ethnicity, 2019 (Percent)

91.3

83.8

80.6

82.2

70.7

69.2

73.0

55.1

52.8

59.4

42.1

38.3

45.0

30.3

23.5

At Least $75,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$30,000 to $50,000

$15,000 to $30,000

Less Than $15,000

Black Hispanic White

Note: The sample size for American Indian or Alaska Native households is not large enough to disaggregate by these income categories.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 9

• Use of bank and nonbank credit also varied by the 

metropolitan status of a household’s residence. In 

2019, 64.6 percent of rural households used bank 

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 

households were more likely to use nonbank credit (6.3 percent), compared with urban households 

(4.9 percent) and suburban households (4.1 percent). 

» When region is paired with metropolitan status, 

the rural South stands out, where only 55.4 percent 

of households used bank credit.
10 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

2. About the Survey

23 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.

Background

Accounts at federally insured depository institutions are 

covered by deposit insurance and other consumer protections. Ownership of an account at a federally insured 

depository institution provides households with a safe 

place to keep deposits and to save for emergency and 

long-term needs, and it facilitates households’ financial transactions. Having a bank account and a banking 

relationship can also facilitate households’ access to 

responsible, affordable credit, and such access can help 

households build their credit history.

Despite these benefits, some households—referred to in 

this report as “unbanked”—do not have an account at a 

federally insured depository institution. Other households have an account but also use nonbank financial 

products or services. Households that go outside the 

banking system to meet their financial needs present 

banks with an opportunity to expand access to their 

products and services.

Economic inclusion supports the FDIC’s mission of maintaining public confidence in the U.S. financial system. 

The FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial 

Services is one contribution to this end. Conducted biennially and partly in response to a statutory mandate, the 

survey collects information on bank account ownership, 

use of prepaid cards and nonbank financial transaction 

services, and use of bank and nonbank credit.23

The FDIC conducts the household survey in partnership 

with the U.S. Census Bureau. Specifically, the FDIC sponsors a survey data collection that is a supplement to the 

Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS).

The first survey was conducted in January 2009, and subsequent surveys were conducted in June 2011, June 2013, 

June 2015, June 2017, and June 2019.24 Results from these 

surveys are available on economicinclusion.gov, which 

also provides the ability to query and download the data.

This report presents the results of the 2019 FDIC Survey 

of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services. The 

survey collected responses from 32,904 households. See 

Appendix 1 (FDIC Technical Notes) for additional details. 

Where appropriate, the report discusses trends in survey 

results over time.

What’s New

In the 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and 

Financial Services, nonresponse to individual survey 

questions (i.e., item nonresponse) was addressed through 

imputation, consistent with the Census Bureau’s treatment of missing values in the CPS.25 For a given question, item nonresponse occurred when a household 

refused to answer the question, responded “don’t know,” 

or dropped out of the survey before the question was 

administered (i.e., the household broke off). For nearly 

all missing values in the 2019 FDIC Survey of Household 

Use of Banking and Financial Services, the Census Bureau 

implemented “hot deck” allocation, replacing a missing value for a particular question with a response to 

the same question provided by a household with similar 

characteristics. Imputing missing values can help correct 

estimation bias due to item nonresponse. See Appendix 1 

for additional details.

In addition, racial and ethnic categories were revised to 

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
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 11

Specifically, the analysis in this report uses the following 

classification of race and ethnicity: 

• Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race

• Black or African American alone, not Hispanic or 

Latino

• 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

• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino

• Two or More Races, not Hispanic or Latino

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.

First, to complement existing questions on reasons for 

not having a bank account, the 2019 survey included 

new questions on unbanked households’ satisfaction 

with their most recent bank and on their perceptions of 

how clearly banks in general communicate account fees. 

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.

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 services in the past 12 months: bill payment services (such 

as Western Union and MoneyGram) and peer-to-peer 

or person-to-person (P2P) payment services (such as 

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. Households 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.
12 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

3. Bank Account Ownership: Unbanked Households

27 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.

National Unbanked Rate

An estimated 5.4 percent of U.S. households were 

“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 approximately 7.1 million U.S. households. Conversely, 94.6 percent 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 

(i.e., the unbanked rate) in 2019—5.4 percent—was the 

lowest since the survey began in 2009, as shown in 

Figure 3.1. Between 2017 and 2019, the unbanked rate fell 

by 1.1 percentage points, corresponding to an increase 

of approximately 1.5 million banked households.27 About 

half of the decline in the unbanked rate between 2017 and 

2019 was associated with improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households over this period. 

However, even after these improvements were accounted 

for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate 

across years was statistically significant.28

Between 2011, when the unbanked rate peaked at 8.2 percent, and 2019, the unbanked rate fell by 2.8 percentage 

points, corresponding to an increase of approximately 

3.7 million banked households. About two-thirds of the 

decline in the unbanked rate between 2011 and 2019 was 

associated with improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households over this period.

Unbanked Rates by Household Characteristics

Consistent with the results of previous surveys, in 2019 

unbanked rates varied considerably across the U.S. population.29 For example, as shown in Table 3.1, unbanked 

rates were higher among lower-income households, 

less-educated households, Black households, Hispanic 

households, American Indian or Alaska Native households, working-age disabled households, and households 

with volatile income.30

For most segments of the population, unbanked rates 

in 2019 were lower than or similar to unbanked rates in 

recent years, as illustrated in Table 3.1. Recent declines 

have been particularly sharp for Black and Hispanic 

households. Specifically, 13.8 percent of Black households were unbanked in 2019, down from 16.8 percent in 

2017 and 18.5 percent in 2015. Among Hispanic households, 12.2 percent were unbanked in 2019, down from 

14.4 percent in 2017 and 16.3 percent in 2015.31 Despite the 

Figure 3.1 National Estimates, Household Unbanked 

Rate by Year (Percent)

7.6

8.2 7.7

7.0 6.5

5.4

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 13

Table 3.1 Unbanked Rates by Selected Household Characteristics and Year

For All Households

Characteristics 2015

(Percent)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

All 7.0 6.5 5.4 -1.1*

Family Income

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

Education

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*

Age Group

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*

Race/Ethnicity

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

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*

Disability Status

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*

Monthly Income Volatility

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

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.
14 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

improvements in unbanked rates for Black and Hispanic 

households, unbanked rates in 2019 for these households 

remained substantially above the unbanked rate for 

White households (2.5 percent).

The 2017 report noted that, while unbanked rates 

declined for Black and Hispanic households as economic 

conditions improved between 2011 and 2017, unbanked 

rates for other populations with a large percentage of 

unbanked households did not decline at a similar pace.32

For example, the unbanked rate for working-age disabled 

households was roughly constant between 2011 and 2017: 

18.9 percent in 2011, 18.4 percent in 2013, 17.6 percent in 

2015, and 18.1 percent in 2017. In 2019, while still much 

higher than the unbanked rate for working-age nondisabled households (4.5 percent), the unbanked rate for 

working-age disabled households (16.2 percent) declined 

to its lowest level since 2011.33

Unbanked Rates by Geography

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.34

However, differences in unbanked rates between the 

South and the other regions have narrowed in recent 

years. In 2015, the unbanked rate in the South (8.7 percent) was 2.8 percentage points higher than the 

combined unbanked rate of the other three regions 

(6.0 percent). In 2019, the unbanked rate in the South 

(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.)

32 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.

Unbanked rates in 2019 varied widely across states, as 

illustrated in Figure 3.2. Reflecting the regional variation 

described above and similar to estimates from previous years, unbanked rates were generally higher among 

states in the South. Unbanked rates ranged from 0.5 percent (New Hampshire) to 12.8 percent (Mississippi). Some 

states saw large decreases in unbanked rates in recent 

years. For example, the unbanked rate in North Carolina 

was 3.4 percent in 2019, down from 5.8 percent in 2017 

and 7.7 percent in 2015, and the unbanked rate in West 

Virginia was 4.7 percent in 2019, down from 7.8 percent 

in 2017 and 8.0 percent in 2015. (See Appendix Tables A.3 

and A.4 for detailed estimates by state and metropolitan statistical area [MSA] and for selected confidence 

intervals.)35

Unbanked rates also varied by the metropolitan status 

of a household’s residence. In 2019, 8.1 percent of urban 

households were unbanked, compared with 6.2 percent 

of rural households and 3.7 percent of suburban households.36 These unbanked rates were lower than in 2017. 

(See Appendix Table A.2 for unbanked rates by metropolitan status and for selected confidence intervals.)

Patterns in unbanked rates by metropolitan status 

differed across regions. As shown in Figure 3.3, for the 

Northeast and Midwest, unbanked rates among urban 

households in 2019 were higher than rates among suburban and rural households. For the South, unbanked rates 

among urban and rural households were higher than the 

rate among suburban households.37 Finally, for the West, 

unbanked rates were similar across urban, suburban, and 

rural households.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 15

Figure 3.2 Unbanked Rates by State, 2019 (Percent)

DC

AL

AK

AZ AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

Less Than 3.6

3.6 to 4.4

4.4 to 5.6

5.6 to 7.6

At Least 7.6

Figure 3.3 Unbanked Rates by Metropolitan Status and Region, 2019 (Percent)

10.3

2.7 2.8

11.7

1.8

3.8

8.0

4.8

9.1

5.1

4.4

6.0

Northeast Midwest South West

Urban Suburban 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).
16 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Previous and Recent Bank Account Ownership

As discussed in previous reports, bank account ownership is not static. Table 3.2 shows that among unbanked 

households in 2019, half (50.4 percent) had had a bank 

account at some point in the past (i.e., had previously 

been banked), slightly higher than in previous years.

As further evidence of the dynamic nature of bank 

account ownership, Table 3.3 segments unbanked 

households by whether they had a bank account in the 

past 12 months. Among unbanked households in 2019, 

10.4 percent had a bank account at some point in the past 

12 months (i.e., were recently unbanked), and 89.6 percent did not have an account at any point in the past 

12 months (i.e., were longer-term unbanked). These percentages are similar to those from previous years.

The information in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 together reveals 

that among unbanked households in 2019, 10.4 percent 

last had a bank account in the past 12 months, 40.0 percent last had an account more than 12 months ago, and 

49.6 percent never had an account.

Table 3.2 Previous Bank Account Ownership of Unbanked 

Households by Year

For Unbanked Households, Row Percent

Year Previously Banked

(Percent)

Never Banked

(Percent)

2015 47.3 52.7

2017 47.0 53.0

2019 50.4 49.6

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.

38 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.

Interest in Having a Bank Account

As shown in Figure 3.4, among unbanked households 

in 2019, more than half (56.2 percent) were not at all 

interested in having a bank account, while 24.8 percent were very or somewhat interested. These estimates 

are qualitatively similar to those from the 2017 survey, 

though changes in the wording of the survey question do 

not allow for direct comparisons.38

Interest in having a bank account was higher among 

certain segments of the unbanked population. For example, as displayed in Figure 3.4, 31.7 percent of unbanked 

households that had previously been banked were very 

or somewhat interested in having an account, compared 

with 17.9 percent of unbanked households that had never 

been banked. Within unbanked households that had previously been banked, interest in having a bank account 

was higher among households with more recent account 

ownership. Among unbanked households that last had an 

account in the past 12 months, 48.8 percent were very or 

somewhat interested in having an account, higher than 

the proportion among unbanked households that last had 

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 

somewhat interested in having an account), compared 

with White unbanked households (22.3 percent were 

very or somewhat interested in having an account). (See 

Appendix Table A.6 for detailed estimates of interest in 

having a bank account by household characteristics.)

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 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 17

trust banks,” “Avoiding a bank gives more privacy,” 

“Bank account fees are too high,” and “Bank account 

fees are too unpredictable.” Among these reasons, 

“Don’t trust banks” was cited as a main reason most 

often (16.1 percent—the second-most cited main reason 

overall).

Reasons for not having an account were generally similar across unbanked households in 2019, regardless of 

whether the household had previously been banked or 

was interested in having an account. A few exceptions are 

worth noting.

A higher proportion of unbanked households that had 

previously been banked cited “Bank account fees are too 

unpredictable” (34.8 percent), compared with unbanked 

households that had never been banked (27.8 percent).

A higher proportion of unbanked households that were 

very or somewhat interested in having an account cited 

“Personal identification, credit, or former bank account 

problems” (26.7 percent), compared with unbanked 

households that were not very or not at all interested in 

having an account (18.5 percent). In addition, a smaller 

proportion of unbanked households that were very or 

Figure 3.4 Interest in Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, by Previous Bank Account Ownership, 

2019 (Percent)

4.5 13.4 17.8 64.4

11.1 20.6 20.1 48.2

7.8 17.0 18.9 56.2

Never

Banked

Previously

Banked

All

Very Interested Somewhat Interested Not Very Interested Not at All Interested

Figure 3.5 Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account, Among Unbanked Households, 2019 (Percent) 

10.4

10.4

13.9

17.8

2.4

13.0

2.2

14.1

1.9

19.6

8.0

20.5

1.6

31.3

7.3

34.2

7.1

36.0

16.1

36.3

29.0

48.9

Did Not Select a Reason

Other Reason

Bank Hours Are Inconvenient

Bank Locations Are Inconvenient

Banks Do Not Offer Needed Products and Services

Personal Identification, Credit, or

Former Bank Account Problems

Bank Account Fees Are Too Unpredictable

Bank Account Fees Are Too High

Avoiding a Bank Gives More Privacy

Don't Trust Banks

Don't Have Enough Money to Meet

Minimum Balance Requirements

Cited Main
18 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

somewhat interested in having an account cited “Don’t 

trust banks” (24.6 percent), compared with unbanked 

households that were not very or not at all interested 

in having an account (40.1 percent). Similarly, a smaller 

proportion of unbanked households that were very or 

somewhat interested in having an account cited “Avoiding a bank gives more privacy” (25.5 percent), compared 

with unbanked households that were not very or not at 

all interested in having an account (39.5 percent). (See 

Appendix Tables A.7–A.10 for cited and main reasons for 

not having an account by previous bank account ownership and interest in having an account.)

Satisfaction With Most Recent Bank and Clarity of Banks’ 

Communications About Account Fees

To complement existing questions on reasons for not 

having a bank account, the 2019 survey included new 

questions on unbanked households’ satisfaction with 

their most recent bank and on their perceptions of how 

clearly banks in general communicate account fees.40 The 

40 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.

analysis below focuses on unbanked households that had 

previously been banked.

As shown in Figure 3.6, among unbanked households 

that had previously been banked, 24.3 percent were very 

satisfied with their most recent bank, 30.8 percent somewhat satisfied, 14.4 percent not very satisfied, 22.8 percent not satisfied at all, and 7.7 percent did not know.41

Satisfaction with one’s most recent bank varied according to how recently the household had a bank account. 

Among unbanked households that last had an account 

in the past 12 months, 67.7 percent were very or somewhat satisfied with their most recent bank, higher than 

the proportion among unbanked households that last 

had an account more than 12 months ago (51.8 percent). 

This finding is consistent with higher interest in having a bank account among households with more recent 

account ownership, as presented above.42

Figure 3.6 Satisfaction With Most Recent Bank, Among Unbanked Households That Had Previously Been Banked, by 

Recent Bank Account Ownership, 2019 (Percent)

23.0 28.9 14.5 24.5 9.1

29.3 38.5 14.1 16.1 2.0

24.3 30.8 14.4 22.8 7.7

Last Had Bank

Account More Than

12 Months Ago

Last Had Bank

Account in Past

12 Months

All

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Not Very Satisfied Not Satisfied at All 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)

14.9 28.9 20.5 24.2 11.5

27.0 31.5 21.7 15.6 4.2

17.4 29.4 20.8 22.4 10.0

Last Had Bank

Account More Than

12 Months Ago

Last Had Bank

Account in Past

12 Months

All

Very Clearly Somewhat Clearly Not Very Clearly Not Clearly at All Don't Know
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 19

Unbanked households’ interest in having a bank account 

was associated with differences in their satisfaction with 

their most recent bank. Among unbanked households that 

were very or somewhat satisfied with their most recent 

bank, 38.6 percent were very or somewhat interested in 

having a bank account. In contrast, among unbanked 

households that were not very satisfied or not satisfied at 

all with their most recent bank, 20.9 percent were very or 

somewhat interested 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.

43 See Appendix Table A.12 for estimates of unbanked households’ perceptions of the clarity of banks’ communications about account fees by household 

characteristics.

Perceptions of the clarity of banks’ communications 

about account fees varied according to how recently the 

household had a bank account. Among unbanked households that last had an account in the past 12 months, 

58.5 percent thought banks communicated account fees 

very or somewhat clearly, higher than the proportion 

among unbanked households that last had an account 

more than 12 months ago (43.8 percent).43

Unbanked households’ interest in having a bank account 

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

Family Income (Percent)

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

Education (Percent)

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

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

Race/Ethnicity (Percent)

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
20 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

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

Disability Status (Percent)

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

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

Employment Status (Percent)

Employed 61.3 61.4 62.1

Unemployed 3.0 2.7 2.2

Not in Labor Force 35.7 35.9 35.7

Homeownership (Percent)

Homeowner 63.3 63.6 64.5

Non-Homeowner 36.7 36.4 35.5

Household Type (Percent)

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

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

Metropolitan Status (Percent)

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

Geographic Region (Percent)

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

Note: Missing values for monthly income volatility in 2019 were imputed; see Appendix 1 for details.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 21

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

4. Bank Account Ownership: Banked Households

44 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.

Primary Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts

Knowing how households access their bank accounts can 

help inform discussions about how best to serve different groups of consumers. As in previous years, the 2019 

survey asked banked households about the primary (i.e., 

most common) 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), using a computer or tablet (i.e., online 

banking), or using some other method (i.e., other).44

Table 4.1 shows the primary methods that banked 

households used to access their accounts.45 Use of mobile 

banking continued to increase sharply (from 9.5 percent 

in 2015 and 15.6 percent in 2017 to 34.0 percent in 2019), 

overtaking online banking as the most prevalent primary 

method of accessing an account. 

Use of online banking as a primary method decreased 

substantially (from 36.9 percent in 2015 and 36.0 percent 

in 2017 to 22.8 percent in 2019), and use of bank tellers 

declined modestly. Despite these declines, use of online 

banking and of bank tellers remained prevalent among 

banked households in 2019. Much as in previous years, 

use of an ATM or bank kiosk remained prevalent in 2019, 

with about one in five banked households using this 

method as the primary method.

The changes between 2015 and 2019 described above 

occurred broadly across different segments of the population. These trends are consistent with households’ 

switching from online banking to mobile banking as a 

primary method to access their bank accounts.

Table 4.2 shows changes between 2017 and 2019 in bank 

tellers, online banking, and mobile banking as the primary method of account access, by selected household 

characteristics. For example, among younger banked 

households, mobile banking as the primary method 

nearly doubled between 2017 and 2019: in 2019, nearly 

two-thirds of these households used mobile banking 

as their primary method. Even groups with lower use of 

mobile banking, such as older, working-age disabled, 

and rural households, exhibited large increases in use 

of mobile banking as the primary method. For example, among rural households, 24.3 percent used mobile 

banking as the primary method in 2019, compared with 

11.2 percent in 2017.

As in prior surveys, use of bank tellers was the most 

prevalent primary method of account access among lower-income households, less-educated households, older 

households, and rural households. For example, 39.6 percent of households without a high school diploma and 

39.2 percent of households aged 65 or older used bank 

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)

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
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

For Banked Households That Accessed Their Account in the Past 12 Months

Bank Teller Online Banking Mobile Banking

Characteristics 2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–

2017)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–

2017)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–

2017)

All 24.3 21.0 -3.4* 36.0 22.8 -13.1* 15.6 34.0 18.4*

Family Income

Less Than $15,000 38.8 35.9 -2.9* 17.2 9.9 -7.3* 11.2 23.5 12.3*

$15,000 to $30,000 38.0 31.7 -6.4* 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*

Education

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*

Age Group

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*

Race/Ethnicity

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*

Disability Status

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*

Monthly Income Volatility

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*
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 23

Bank Branch Visits

In addition to asking banked households how they access 

their accounts, the 2017 and 2019 surveys asked households whether they spoke with a teller or other employee 

in person at a bank branch (i.e., visited a bank branch) in 

the past 12 months, and if so, how many times.46

Some households may visit a bank branch for activities 

other than accessing an account, such as resolving a 

problem or asking about products or services. By measuring the frequency of branch use, the questions on 

visits to a bank branch complement the questions about 

methods of accessing an account.

Figure 4.1 shows the frequency of bank branch visits 

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 

less frequent between 2017 and 2019. The share of banked 

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 

36.3 percent in 2019.47

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 

46 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.)

that visited a branch one to four times increased. (For 

estimates of bank branch visits among banked households by household characteristics and year, see Appendix Tables B.7–B.10.)

Table 4.3 shows bank branch visits among banked households by selected household characteristics. In 2019 (as 

was also the case in 2017), some segments of the banked 

population were more likely than others to visit a bank 

branch and to visit ten or more times. Older households 

and households with volatile income were more likely 

to visit a branch and to visit ten or more times. Black, 

Hispanic, and Asian households were less likely to visit a 

branch or to visit ten or more times. While less-educated 

households were less likely to visit a branch overall, 

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 Online Banking Mobile Banking

Characteristics 2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–

2017)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–

2017)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–

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.

Figure 4.1 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked 

Households, by Year (Percent)

14.0 17.0

30.8

36.3

18.2 18.3

35.4

28.4

0 Times 1 to 4

Times

5 to 9

Times

10 or More

Times

2017 2019

Note: For 2017, not shown are households that visited a branch but with unknown 

frequency (1.6 percent of banked households).
24 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

those that did visit a branch were more likely to visit ten 

or more times. (See Appendix Table B.11 for bank branch 

visits among banked households that visited a branch.) 

Bank branch visits varied substantially across metropolitan status. In 2019, nearly nine in ten rural households 

visited a branch, and about four in ten rural households 

visited ten or more times, as shown in Figure 4.2.

Table 4.4 shows bank branch visits in 2019 among 

banked households by the primary method used to 

access an account. Nearly 60 percent of banked houseTable 4.3 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked Households, by Selected Household Characteristics, 2019

For Banked Households, Row Percent

Characteristics 0 Times 

(Percent)

1 to 4 Times 

(Percent)

5 to 9 Times 

(Percent)

10 or More Times

(Percent)

All 17.0 36.3 18.3 28.4

Family Income

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

Education

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

Age Group

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

Race/Ethnicity

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

Disability Status

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

Monthly Income Volatility

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

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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 25

holds that used bank tellers as their primary method 

visited a branch ten or more times. Branch visits were 

prevalent even among banked households that used 

online or mobile banking as their primary method of 

account access. For example, 79.9 percent of banked 

households that used mobile banking as their primary method visited a branch in the past 12 months, and 

about one in five (18.8 percent) banked households that 

used mobile banking as their primary method visited 

ten or more times.

Figure 4.2 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked Households, by Metropolitan Status, 2019 (Percent)

20.8

17.0

12.3

38.2 38.2

29.3

18.4 18.6

16.7

22.6

26.2

41.6

0 Times 1 to 4 Times 5 to 9 Times 10 or More Times

Urban Suburban 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

0 Times 

(Percent)

1 to 4 Times 

(Percent)

5 to 9 Times 

(Percent)

10 or More Times

(Percent)

All 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
26 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

48 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.

Smartphone and Home Internet Access

Financial institutions—banks and nonbanks—are 

seeking to interact with their customers through 

the internet and mobile phones, especially 

smartphones.48

As in earlier surveys, the 2019 survey asked households whether they owned or had regular access 

to a smartphone and whether they had internet 

access at home using a desktop, laptop, or tablet 

computer. Table 4.5 shows that smartphone access 

increased between 2015 and 2019, while home 

internet access was roughly constant during the 

same period.49 In 2019, about nine in ten households (90.9 percent) had smartphone or home 

internet access.

Smartphone and home internet access continued to 

be lower among unbanked households than among 

banked households. However, the proportion of 

unbanked households that had smartphone access 

increased from 49.0 percent in 2015 to 63.7 percent 

in 2019. The proportion of unbanked households 

that had home internet access in 2019 (33.8 percent) 

was similar to the proportion in previous years.

Smartphone and home internet access continued to 

be lower among rural households than among urban 

and suburban households. However, the proportion 

of rural households that had smartphone access 

increased from 60.2 percent in 2015 to 75.6 percent 

in 2019. The proportion of rural households that 

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

Characteristics 2015 

(Percent)

2017 

(Percent)

2019 

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

2015 

(Percent)

2017 

(Percent)

2019 

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

All 72.3 79.6 85.4 5.8* 77.4 79.4 79.9 0.5

Bank Account Ownership

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

Metropolitan Status

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

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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 27

Satisfaction With Primary Bank and Clarity of Bank’s 

Communication About Account Fees

The 2019 survey included new questions for banked 

households, asking about their satisfaction with their 

primary bank and about their perceptions of how clearly 

their bank communicates account fees. Almost all banked 

households were satisfied with their primary bank and 

thought that fees were clearly communicated.

As shown in Table 4.6, three in four banked households 

(75.2 percent) were very satisfied with their primary bank, and one in five (22.0 percent) were somewhat 

satisfied, totaling 97.3 percent.50 The remainder includes 

households that were not very satisfied (1.6 percent) or 

not satisfied at all (0.6 percent), totaling 2.2 percent, as 

well as households that did not know (0.6 percent).51

Two in three banked households (67.7 percent) thought 

that their bank communicated fees very clearly, and 

one in four (24.4 percent) thought that fees were communicated somewhat clearly, totaling 92.1 percent. The 

remainder includes households that thought that fees 

were communicated not very clearly (4.4 percent) or not 

clearly at all (1.8 percent), totaling 6.2 percent, as well as 

households that did not know (1.7 percent). 

Table 4.6 Satisfaction With Primary Bank and 

Perceptions of Clarity of Own Bank’s Communication 

About Account Fees, Among Banked Households, 2019

For Banked Households, Column Percent

All

Satisfaction (Percent)

Very Satisfied 75.2

Somewhat Satisfied 22.0

Not Very Satisfied 1.6

Not Satisfied at All 0.6

Don't Know 0.6

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

50 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.

About nine in ten banked households (91.0 percent) were 

both satisfied (very or somewhat) with their primary 

bank and thought their bank’s communication about 

account fees was clear (very or somewhat). Households 

that thought their bank communicated fees very or 

somewhat clearly were 17.3 percentage points more likely 

to be very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank 

(98.8 percent), compared with households that thought 

their bank communicated fees not very clearly or not 

clearly at all (81.5 percent).

Satisfaction With Primary Bank and Clarity of Bank’s 

Communication About Account Fees by Household 

Characteristics

Banked households’ satisfaction with their primary 

bank was consistently high across different segments 

of the population. Between 94.8 and 97.7 percent of the 

banked households in the different population segments 

shown in Table 4.7 were very or somewhat satisfied with 

their primary bank. Among households where income 

varied a lot from month to month, 94.8 percent were 

very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank, as 

were 95.2 percent of working-age disabled households, 

96.0 percent of the lowest-income households (less than 

$15,000), and 96.4, 97.3, and 96.9 percent of Black, Hispanic, and Asian households, respectively.

Banked households’ perceptions of how clearly their 

bank communicated fees were also consistently high 

across banked households. Between 85.4 and 93.1 percent 

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 

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 

of the lowest-income households (less than $15,000), 

89.9 percent of households without a high school diploma, 90.1 percent of working-age disabled households, 

and 89.8 percent of Black households.
28 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Table 4.7 Satisfaction With Primary Bank, Among Banked Households, by Selected Household Characteristics, 2019

For Banked Households, Row Percent

Characteristics Very Satisfied 

(Percent)

Somewhat 

Satisfied 

(Percent)

Not Very 

Satisfied 

(Percent)

Not Satisfied 

at All

(Percent)

Don’t Know

(Percent)

All 75.2 22.0 1.6 0.6 0.6

Family Income

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

$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

Education

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

Age Group

15 to 24 Years 72.0 25.7 1.1 0.4 0.8

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

Disability Status

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

Monthly Income Volatility

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

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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 29

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

Characteristics Very Clearly 

(Percent)

Somewhat 

Clearly 

(Percent)

Not Very 

Clearly 

(Percent)

Not Clearly 

at All

(Percent)

Don’t Know

(Percent)

All 67.7 24.4 4.4 1.8 1.7

Family Income

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

$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

Education

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

Age Group

15 to 24 Years 67.9 24.6 4.6 1.6 1.3

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

Disability Status

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

Monthly Income Volatility

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

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.
30 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Association of Satisfaction and Clarity With the Use of 

Nonbank Financial Transaction Services

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show how banked households’ 

satisfaction with their primary bank and their perceptions of how clearly their bank communicated account 

fees were associated with their use of nonbank financial transaction services in the past 12 months. These 

services include nonbank money orders, check cashing, bill payment services (such as Western Union and 

MoneyGram), international remittances, and peerto-peer or person-to-person (P2P) payment services 

(examples are PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App).52

Higher shares of banked households that were not 

satisfied with their primary bank used nonbank money orders, check cashing, or bill payment services, 

compared with households that were satisfied. Among 

52 For more details on the use of nonbank financial transaction services, see section 6. 

53 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.

households that were not very satisfied or not satisfied at all, 22.3 percent used at least one of those three 

nonbank financial transaction services, compared with 

14.9 percent of households that were very or somewhat 

satisfied.53

Higher shares of banked households that thought their 

bank did not communicate fees clearly used nonbank 

money orders, check cashing, or bill payment services, 

compared with households that thought their bank communicated fees clearly. Among households that thought 

that fees were communicated not very clearly or not 

clearly at all, 20.1 percent used at least one of those three 

nonbank financial transaction services, compared with 

14.7 percent of households that thought fees were communicated very or somewhat clearly.54
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 31

Figure 4.3 Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Service Use, Among Banked Households, by Satisfaction With 

Primary Bank, 2019 (Percent)

22.3

14.9

38.5

32.3

7.7

5.3

7.1

4.3

5.0

4.0

16.5

10.1

Money Order, Check Cashing,

or Bill Payment Service

P2P Payment Service

International Remittance

Bill Payment Service

Check Cashing

Money Order

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)

20.1

14.7

42.6

31.9

9.1

5.1

7.6

4.1

5.3

3.9

13.1

10.0

Money Order, Check Cashing,

or Bill Payment Service

P2P Payment Service

International Remittance

Bill Payment Service

Check Cashing

Money Order

Very or Somewhat Clearly Not Very Clearly or Not Clearly at All
32 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

5. Prepaid Cards

55 The survey questions on prepaid cards instructed households not to consider gift cards.

56 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.

Some consumers, both banked and unbanked, use general purpose reloadable prepaid cards to conduct financial 

transactions, such as paying bills, withdrawing cash at 

ATMs, making purchases, depositing checks, and receiving direct deposits. Consumers can obtain prepaid cards 

from banks, employers, government agencies, stores, 

websites, or other sources.55 Many, although not all, such 

cards store funds in accounts eligible for federal deposit 

insurance.

As in earlier surveys, the 2019 survey asked all households whether they used a prepaid card in the past 

12 months.56 In 2019, 8.5 percent of households used prepaid cards, down from 9.7 percent in 2017 and 10.2 percent in 2015.57

Prepaid Card Use by Household Characteristics

Differences in prepaid card use across households in 

2019 were similar to the differences in earlier years. As 

shown in Table 5.1, prepaid card use was higher among 

lower-income households, less-educated households, 

younger households, Black households, working-age disabled households, and households with volatile income.58

Some population segments experienced a decline in 

prepaid card use between 2015 and 2019. For example, 

10.6 percent of households between the ages of 25 and 34 

used prepaid cards in 2019, compared with 11.5 percent in 

2017 and 13.1 percent in 2015.

Prepaid Card Use by Geography

As in previous years, prepaid card use varied across 

regions of the United States. In 2019, 7.1 percent of 

households in the West used prepaid cards, compared 

with 8.2 percent in the Northeast, 8.9 percent in the 

Midwest, and 9.3 percent in the South. Figure 5.1 shows 

that prepaid card use varied considerably across states in 

2019, ranging from 4.6 percent in Hawaii to 13.6 percent 

in Alabama. (See Appendix Tables C.2 and C.3 for detailed 

state- and MSA-level estimates and for selected confidence intervals.)

Prepaid Card Use by Bank Account Ownership

Prepaid card use continued to be more prevalent among 

unbanked households than among banked households. 

As illustrated in Figure 5.2, 27.7 percent of unbanked 

households used a prepaid card in 2019, compared with 

7.4 percent of banked households.59

Compared with unbanked households that did not use 

prepaid cards, unbanked households that used prepaid 

cards were more likely to have had a bank account at 

some point in the past. In 2019, 65.3 percent of unbanked 

households that used prepaid cards had previously been 

banked, compared with 45.1 percent of unbanked households that did not use prepaid cards.

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
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 33

Table 5.1 Prepaid Card Use by Selected Household Characteristics and Year

For All Households

Characteristics 2015

(Percent)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

All 10.2 9.7 8.5 -1.2*

Family Income

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*

Education

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*

Age Group

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

Race/Ethnicity

Black 14.9 14.1 14.8 0.7

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

Disability Status

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*

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.
34 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Figure 5.1 Prepaid Card Use by State, 2019 (Percent)

DC

AL

AK

AZ AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

Less Than 7.3

7.3 to 8.6

8.6 to 9.3

9.3 to 10.6

At Least 10.6

Figure 5.2 Prepaid Card Use by Bank Account Ownership 

and Year (Percent)

29.6 29.5 27.7

8.8 8.3 7.4

Unbanked 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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 35

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

6. Nonbank Financial Transaction Services

61 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.

The 2019 survey included questions about all households’ 

use of nonbank financial transaction services during 

the past 12 months. These services can be used to receive 

payments, including income. They can also be used to 

send money to friends or relatives, or to pay bills. 

The specific nonbank financial transaction services that 

were asked about in previous years were money orders, 

check cashing, and remittances sent abroad. The 2019 

survey asked about those same services (use during 

the past 12 months), and it also included new questions 

about two other types of nonbank financial transaction services: bill payment services (such as are offered 

by Western Union and MoneyGram) and use of a website or app to send or receive money inside the United 

States.61 The latter service—known as a peer-to-peer 

or person-to-person (P2P) payment service—relies on 

the user’s having access to the internet with either a 

smartphone or a computer.62 Examples of this service are 

PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App.

The 2019 survey also asked new questions about the frequency of use—often, sometimes, or rarely—for nonbank 

money orders, check cashing, bill payment services, and 

remittances sent abroad. In the 2015 and 2017 surveys, 

households were asked whether they used specific financial transaction services to pay bills in a typical month. The 

2019 survey, aside from asking about bill payment services, 

asked households that used money orders sometimes or 

often whether they used money orders to pay bills. 

Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction Services 

Figure 6.1 displays the percentage of all households 

that used each nonbank transaction service in the past 

12 months, as well as the percentage that used at least 

one of the following: money orders, check cashing, or 

bill payment services. In 2019, 11.9 percent of households used money orders, 5.5 percent used check cashing, 

and 4.9 percent used bill payment services. Altogether, 

17.2 percent of households used at least one of those three 

services (money orders, check cashing, or bill payment 

Figure 6.1 Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Service Use, 2019 (Percent)

17.2

31.1

5.5

4.9

5.5

11.9

Money Order, Check Cashing,

or Bill Payment Service

P2P Payment Service

International Remittance

Bill Payment Service

Check Cashing

Money Order
36 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

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 

63 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. 

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 

population reported in Table 6.1, and for most groups it fell 

markedly. The groups for which the use of money orders fell 

most substantially (as a share of previous use) were Asian, 

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.

Figure 6.2 Nonbank Money Order, Check Cashing, and 

International Remittance Use by Year (Percent)

15.7

14.3

11.9

6.8 6.3 5.5

3.9 3.7

5.5

Money Order Check Cashing International

Remittance

2015 2017 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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 37

Table 6.1 Nonbank Money Order, Check Cashing, and International Remittance Use by Selected Household 

Characteristics and Year

For All Households

Money Order Check Cashing International Remittance

Characteristics 2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

All 14.3 11.9 -2.3* 6.3 5.5 -0.7* 3.7 5.5 1.9*

Family Income

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*

Education

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*

Age Group

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*

Race/Ethnicity

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

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

Disability Status

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*

Monthly Income Volatility

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*

Citizenship and Place of Birth

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*

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.
38 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Table 6.2 Nonbank Bill Payment Service and P2P Payment Service Use by Selected Household Characteristics, 2019

For All Households, Row Percent

Characteristics Bill Payment Service

(Percent)

P2P Payment Service

(Percent)

All 4.9 31.1

Family Income

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

Education

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

Age Group

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

Race/Ethnicity

Black 9.3 27.7

Hispanic 10.6 24.3

Asian 4.8 38.0

American Indian or Alaska Native 10.5 22.3

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander NA NA

White 2.8 32.5

Two or More Races 4.3 40.1

Disability Status

Disabled, Aged 25 to 64 6.5 20.6

Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64 5.5 39.4

Monthly Income Volatility

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

Citizenship and Place of Birth

U.S.-Born 4.0 32.1

Foreign-Born Citizen 7.9 24.8

Foreign-Born Noncitizen 12.9 26.3

Smartphone or Home Internet Access

Has Neither 4.2 2.9

Has at Least One 5.0 33.9

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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 39

The characteristics of households that made P2P payments were substantially different from the characteristics of households that used the other nonbank 

transaction services. The households most likely to 

use P2P payment services were those with income of 

$75,000 or more, those with a college degree, younger 

and middle-aged households, working-age nondisabled 

households, Asian households, and Two or More Races 

households. Use of P2P payment services requires access 

to the internet with either a smartphone or a computer. 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 smartphone access nor 

home internet access. (For more information on smartphone and home internet access, see section 4.) 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.

Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction Services by Bank 

Account Ownership

Figure 6.3 displays the use of nonbank transaction services among unbanked households and among banked 

households. 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 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, and 8.8 percent used P2P payment services. Among 

banked households, 10.2 percent used money orders, 

4.0 percent used check cashing, and 4.4 percent used bill 

payment services; 15.0 percent used at least one of these 

three transaction services. In addition, 5.3 percent of 

banked households used international remittances, and 

32.3 percent used P2P payment services. 

Figure 6.3 Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Service Use by Bank Account Ownership, 2019 (Percent)

15.0

32.3

5.3

4.4

4.0

10.2

56.1

8.8

9.4

14.4

31.9

42.3

Banked

Unbanked

Money Order Check Cashing Bill Payment Service

International Remittance P2P Payment Service Money Order, Check Cashing, or Bill Payment Service
40 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

The use by unbanked households of money orders and 

check cashing was proportionally similar in 2019 to what 

it had been in 2017 (see Table 6.3). For banked households, 

the use of money orders fell by 2.1 percentage points 

between 2017 and 2019, and the use of check cashing 

fell by 0.6 percentage points. For both unbanked and 

banked households, the use of international remittances 

increased markedly between 2017 and 2019: for unbanked 

households, the use increased by 3.1 percentage points, 

while for banked households, the use increased by 

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

The 2019 survey included new questions on the frequency 

of use of nonbank transaction services other than P2P 

payment services, specifically on whether each nonbank 

transaction service was used often, sometimes, or rarely. 

Figure 6.4 reports the frequency with which money 

orders, check cashing, bill payment services, and international remittances were used in 2019 (not reported 

66 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).

is the percentage of households that did not use these 

services). Money orders tended to be used often (4.4 percent) or rarely (4.6 percent), with a smaller share using 

them only sometimes (2.9 percent). The use of check 

cashing and bill payment services was distributed more 

evenly, with similar percentages of households using 

each of the two types often, sometimes, or rarely.66

International remittances were typically used sometimes 

(2.4 percent), compared with often (1.4 percent) and rarely (1.7 percent). 

Frequency of Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction 

Services by Household Characteristics

Table 6.4 reports frequency of use by household characteristics, with a focus on the percentage of households in 

each population segment that used a nonbank transaction service often (as opposed to sometimes or rarely).67

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. 

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)

A. All Households

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*

B. Unbanked Households

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*

C. Banked Households

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*

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. 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 41

Figure 6.4 Frequency of Use of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services, 2019 (Percent)

4.4

2.9

4.6

1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7

1.4 1.4

2.4

1.7

Money Order Check Cashing Bill Payment Service International Remittance

Often Sometimes 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 Money Order

(Percent)

Check Cashing

(Percent)

Bill Payment 

Service

(Percent)

International 

Remittance

(Percent)

All 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

Education

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

Age Group

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
42 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

For example, Figure 6.5 shows the use of check cashing 

and the frequency of use by education level. Population segments where the use of check cashing was more 

common (less-educated households) were more likely 

to use check cashing often. In 2019, about one in seven 

households without a high school diploma (14.6 percent) 

used nonbank check cashing, and 7.2 percent did so often. 

For comparison, 2.3 percent of households with a college 

degree used check cashing, and 0.4 percent did so often. 

Among households using check cashing at all, lesseducated households were more likely to use check cashing often. About half of households without a high school 

diploma that used check cashing did so often, compared 

with about one in five households with a college degree 

(49.4 percent compared with 17.9 percent). 

Another example of the pattern described above is shown 

in Figure 6.6, which examines the use of international 

Table 6.4 Frequency of Use (Often) of Specific Nonbank Financial Transaction Services by Selected Household 

Characteristics, 2019 (continued)

For All Households, Row Percent

Characteristics Money Order

(Percent)

Check Cashing

(Percent)

Bill Payment 

Service

(Percent)

International 

Remittance

(Percent)

Race/Ethnicity

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 –

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 –

Disability Status

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

Monthly Income Volatility

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

Citizenship and Place of Birth

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

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.

Figure 6.5 Nonbank Check Cashing Use and Frequency 

of Use (Often) by Education, 2019 (Percent)

14.6

7.2 7.1

2.3

5.8

1.5 2.3

0.4

No High

School

Diploma

High

School

Diploma

Some

College

College

Degree

Used at Least Once Used Often

Figure 6.6 Nonbank International Remittance Use and 

Frequency of Use (Often) by Citizenship and Place of 

Birth, 2019 (Percent)

2.0 0.3

20.6

5.2

32.6

10.9

U.S.-Born Foreign-Born

Citizen

Foreign-Born

Noncitizen

Used at Least Once Used Often
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 43

remittances and the frequency of use, by citizenship 

and place of birth. Population segments where the use 

of international remittances was more common (the 

foreign born and especially noncitizens) were more likely 

to use remittances often. About one in three foreign-born 

noncitizen households (32.6 percent) used international remittances in 2019, and one in ten (10.9 percent) 

did so often. For comparison, 2.0 percent of U.S.-born 

households used international remittances in 2019, and 

0.3 percent did so often. Among households using international remittances at all, foreign-born citizen and 

noncitizen households were more likely to use them 

often. One-third of foreign-born noncitizen households 

that used remittances did so often, compared with about 

one in six U.S.-born households (33.4 percent compared 

with 17.0 percent).

Frequency of Use of Nonbank Financial Transaction 

Services by Bank Account Ownership

Table 6.5 reports—by bank account ownership—the 

frequency with which households in 2019 used nonbank financial transaction services. About one in four 

unbanked households (25.4 percent) often used money 

orders, and more than one in six (17.8 percent) often 

used check cashing. The shares of unbanked households 

that often used bill payment services (7.1 percent) and 

international remittances (3.3 percent) were lower. For 

money orders, check cashing, and bill payment services, 

a majority of the unbanked households that used those 

nonbank transaction services at all also used them often 

(making up 60.0, 55.9, and 48.8 percent of those users, 

respectively). 

Very small shares of banked households often used 

money orders (3.2 percent), check cashing (0.9 percent), 

bill payment services (1.5 percent), or international 

remittances (1.3 percent). Among banked households that 

used each nonbank transaction service in 2019, the share 

of households that often used each of the transaction 

services was 31.5 percent for money orders, 21.5 percent 

for check cashing, 34.4 percent for bill payment services, 

and 24.8 percent for international remittances. Among 

banked households, higher shares of those with less than 

$15,000 in income and of those without a high school 

diploma, as well as Black and Hispanic households, 

used money orders, check cashing, and bill payment 

services 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)

A. All Households

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

B. Unbanked Households

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

C. Banked Households

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
44 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Use of Nonbank Money Orders for Paying Bills 

The 2019 survey also asked about the use of money orders 

for paying bills but only of the 7.3 percent of households 

that sometimes or often used money orders (11.9 percent 

of all households used money orders in 2019).68 In 2019, 

6.4 percent of all households used a money order sometimes or often and used a money order to pay bills. These 

households constitute almost nine in ten (87.1 percent) 

of the households that sometimes or often used mon68 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.

ey orders. Households that rarely used money orders in 

2019 might also have paid bills with their money orders, 

but these households were not asked about paying bills. 

Among households that used money orders sometimes or 

often, both banked and unbanked households used money orders for paying bills at a rate of about nine in ten: 

92.2 percent of unbanked households and 85.3 percent of 

banked households.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 45

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

7. Bank and Nonbank Credit

69 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.

Recognizing the importance of credit to households and 

communities, policymakers have had a longstanding 

interest in not only ensuring equal access to credit but also 

in expanding access to credit, as evidenced by the Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, 

and the creation of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.69 In March 2020, the FDIC, Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA), and Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency (OCC) issued a statement encouraging financial institutions to offer responsible small-dollar loans to 

consumers and small businesses in response to COVID19.70 In May 2020, the FDIC, FRB, NCUA, and OCC issued 

interagency guidance to clarify regulatory expectations 

in a manner that encourages financial institutions to offer 

responsible small-dollar loans.71 Additional efforts have 

focused on credit access for the nearly 20 percent of adults 

who are credit invisible (i.e., do not have a credit record 

with one of the nationwide credit reporting agencies) or 

unscorable (i.e., have a credit record, but the record does 

not contain sufficient information to generate a credit 

score).72 Without a credit score, a household may have to 

meet its credit needs with forms of credit that are typically 

more expensive than bank credit—forms such as nonbank 

credit products like pawn shop or payday loans.73

This section examines household use of bank credit and 

nonbank credit, focusing on products that households 

may use to address cash-flow imbalances, unexpected 

expenses, or temporary income shortfalls.74 A household is considered to have used bank credit if, in the past 

12 months, it had a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, 

or Discover credit card (i.e., a credit card) or a personal 

loan or line of credit from a bank (i.e., a bank personal 

loan). A household is considered to have used nonbank 

credit if it used a rent-to-own service or a payday, auto 

title, pawn shop, or tax refund anticipation loan in the 

past 12 months.75

Like the previous two surveys, the 2019 survey asked 

about measures of the demand for bank credit. Specifically, households were asked whether, in the past 

12 months, they applied for bank credit (i.e., applied), 

were turned down for bank credit or not given as much 

credit as they applied for (i.e., denied or not given as 

much credit as requested), or thought about applying for 

bank credit but did not because of concerns about being 

turned down (i.e., did not apply because of concerns 

about being turned down).

Changes in Bank and Nonbank Credit Use

Figure 7.1 shows changes between 2015 and 2019 in the 

share of households that used bank credit and the share 

that used nonbank credit. The share of households that 

used bank credit increased from 67.9 percent in 2015 

to 72.5 percent in 2019.76 The share of households that 

used nonbank credit declined from 8.1 percent in 2015 
46 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

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 segments of the population, as shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.2 displays changes in the use of specific credit 

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 

for both unbanked and banked households.

Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Household 

Characteristics

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. 

77 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.

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 

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 

of $75,000 or more.

Differences by race and ethnicity and by disability status 

were also large. In 2019, 52.5 percent of Black households, 

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 

credit, whereas about 90 percent of White households did 

so. Among American Indian or Alaska Native households, 

37.8 percent of households with income less than $50,000 

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 

were also less likely to use bank credit. For example, in 

2019, 84.6 percent of working-age disabled households 

with income of $75,000 or more used bank credit, compared 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. 

Figure 7.1 Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Year 

(Percent)

67.9 69.6 72.5

8.1 7.5 4.8

Bank Credit Nonbank Credit

2015 2017 2019

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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 47

Table 7.1 Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Selected Household Characteristics and Year

For All Households

Bank Credit Nonbank Credit

Characteristics 2015

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2015)

2015

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2015)

All 67.9 72.5 4.6* 8.1 4.8 -3.3*

Family Income

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*

Education

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*

Age Group

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*

Race/Ethnicity

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*

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*

Disability Status

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*

Monthly Income Volatility

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*

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.
48 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Turning to nonbank credit use, lower income households, 

less-educated households, Black households, Hispanic households, and working-age disabled households 

were more likely to use nonbank credit. Households with 

income that varied a lot from month to month were more 

than twice as likely to use nonbank credit as households 

with income that was about the same each month. 

Table 7.2 Specific Credit Product Use by Bank Account Ownership and Year 

For All Households

Specific Credit Products 2015

(Percent)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

A. All Households

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*

B. Unbanked Households

Credit Card 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

C. Banked Households

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 -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.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 49

Bank and Nonbank Credit Use by Geography

Use of bank and nonbank credit varied across regions of 

the United States. In 2019, 67.2 percent of households in 

the South used bank credit, compared with 76.0 percent in 

the Northeast, 75.4 percent in the Midwest, and 75.9 percent in the West. Use of nonbank credit was highest in the 

South (6.3 percent), followed by the Midwest (5.0 percent), 

the West (3.9 percent), and the Northeast (2.6 percent).

Figures 7.3 and 7.4 show that bank and nonbank credit 

use varied widely across states: 85.3 percent of households in New Hampshire used bank credit, compared with 

52.4 percent in Mississippi. Use of nonbank credit was 

highest in Nevada (10.7 percent) and lowest in Wisconsin 

(1.8 percent). (See Appendix Tables E.2, E.3, E.5, and E.6 

for detailed state- and MSA-level estimates of bank and 

nonbank credit use.)

Use of bank and nonbank credit also varied by the 

metropolitan status of a household’s residence. In 2019, 

64.6 percent of rural households used bank 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 households were more 

likely to use nonbank credit (6.3 percent), compared with 

urban households (4.9 percent) and suburban households 

(4.1 percent).

Patterns in use of bank credit by metropolitan status 

differed across regions, as shown in Figure 7.5. The rural 

South stands out, where only 55.4 percent of households 

used bank credit. In the West, as well, rural households 

were less likely than urban and suburban households to 

use bank credit. In the Northeast, urban households were 

the least likely to use bank credit (64.0 percent), compared with suburban (81.4 percent) and rural (79.2 percent) Northeast households. Finally, in the Midwest, 

urban and rural households were less likely than suburban households to use bank credit.

With one exception, the use of nonbank credit was highest in rural areas regardless of region, as shown in Figure 7.6. The exception is the South, where the proportion 

of urban households that used nonbank credit (6.8 percent) was almost identical to the proportion among rural 

households (7.0 percent). 

Changes in Bank Credit Demand Measures

Table 7.3 shows changes in measures of bank credit 

demand between 2015 and 2019. The share of households 

that applied for bank credit increased from 13.9 percent in 

2015 and 14.1 percent in 2017 to 15.1 percent in 2019. Among 

households that had applied for bank credit, the share 

that were denied or not given as much credit as requested declined from 20.0 percent in 2015 and 19.5 percent in 

Figure 7.2 Bank Credit Use by Household Income Level and Race and Ethnicity, 2019 (Percent)

91.3

83.8

80.6

82.2

70.7

69.2

73.0

55.1

52.8

59.4

42.1

38.3

45.0

30.3

23.5

At Least $75,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$30,000 to $50,000

$15,000 to $30,000

Less Than $15,000

Black Hispanic White

Note: The sample size for American Indian or Alaska Native households is not large enough to disaggregate by these income categories.
50 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Figure 7.3 Bank Credit Use by State, 2019 (Percent)

DC

AL

AK

AZ AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

Less Than 66.5

66.5 to 73.4

73.4 to 75.7

75.7 to 79.6

At Least 79.6

Figure 7.4 Nonbank Credit Use by State, 2019 (Percent)

DC

AL

AK

AZ AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

Less Than 3.0

3.0 to 4.6

4.6 to 5.5

5.5 to 6.9

At Least 6.9
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 51

Figure 7.6 Nonbank Credit Use by Metropolitan Status and Region, 2019 (Percent)

2.0

2.6

4.4

5.5

4.1

6.4 6.8

5.4

7.0

4.0

3.0

5.3

Northeast Midwest South West

Urban Suburban 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).

Figure 7.5 Bank Credit Use by Metropolitan Status and Region, 2019 (Percent)

64.0

81.4 79.2

68.9

81.6

70.4

65.3

72.8

55.4

76.2 77.7

67.7

Northeast Midwest South West

Urban Suburban 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).

Table 7.3 Bank Credit Demand Measures by Year

For All Households

2015

(Percent)

2017

(Percent)

2019

(Percent)

Difference

(2019–2017)

Applied 13.9 14.1 15.1 0.9*

Among Households That Had Applied, Share That Were Denied or 

Not Given as Much Credit as Requested 20.0 19.5 17.1 -2.4*

Did Not Apply Because of Concerns About Being Turned Down 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.
52 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

2017 to 17.1 percent in 2019. The share of households that 

did not apply for bank credit because of concerns about 

being turned down increased slightly between 2017 and 

2019. This increase holds even after changes in income and 

other characteristics of U.S. households between 2017 and 

2019 were accounted for.81

Bank Credit Demand Measures by Bank Account 

Ownership and Household Characteristics

Table 7.4 shows measures of bank credit demand by 

selected household characteristics. Unbanked households applied for bank credit at a substantially lower rate 

81 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.

(2.8 percent) than banked households (15.8 percent). Certain segments of the population, including lower-income 

households, less-educated households, older households, 

and Black households, also applied at lower rates than 

other segments. Lower-income households, Black households, working-age disabled households, and households with volatile income were more likely to have been 

denied bank credit or not to have been given as much 

credit as requested (among households that had applied) 

or not to have applied for bank credit because of concerns 

about being turned down.

Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies

Savings can help households better manage unexpected expenses or emergencies, such as a sudden illness, 

job loss, or home or car 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, households were asked whether they set aside any money in 

the past 12 months that could be used for unexpected 

expenses or emergencies, even if the funds were later 

spent. Households were prompted to consider only 

funds that could have been easily spent, if necessary, 

and not retirement or other long-term savings.82

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.

As in previous years, rates of saving for unexpected 

expenses or emergencies in 2019 varied by household characteristics. For example, savings rates were 

lower among lower-income households, less-educated 

households, older households, Black households, 

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 

Appendix Table E.14 for detailed estimates of savings 

rates by household characteristics and for selected 

confidence intervals.)

In 2019, rates of saving for unexpected expenses 

or emergencies continued to be much lower among 

unbanked households than among banked households. Figure 7.7 shows that in 2019, 26.0 percent of 

unbanked households saved for unexpected expenses 

or emergencies, compared with 66.4 percent of banked 

households. However, the proportion of unbanked 

households that saved for unexpected expenses or 

emergencies was higher in 2019 than in previous 

years.83

Figure 7.7 Rates of Saving for Unexpected Expenses 

or Emergencies by Bank Account Ownership and Year 

(Percent)

20.2 17.4

26.0

58.9 60.4 66.4

Unbanked Banked

2015 2017 2019
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 53

Table 7.4 Bank Credit Demand Measures by Bank Account Ownership and Household Characteristics, 2019

For All Households, Row Percent

Characteristics 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)

All 15.1 17.1 6.3

Bank Account Ownership

Unbanked 2.8 NA 9.9

Banked 15.8 16.7 6.1

Family Income

Less Than $15,000 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

Education

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

Age Group

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

Race/Ethnicity

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

Disability Status

Disabled, Aged 25 to 64 13.1 28.6 11.8

Not Disabled, Aged 25 to 64 17.7 16.4 6.9

Monthly Income Volatility

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

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.
54 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

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

84 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.

Overview

As this report is being written, changes in the labor market and financial landscape resulting from the COVID-19 

pandemic are still unfolding, and the full effects of the 

pandemic are far from known. However, early evidence 

has shown a rapid and dramatic increase in the unemployment rate. Even individuals who did not lose their 

job may be working fewer hours and may therefore have 

reduced income. For the self-employed, revenue may be 

lost as economic conditions worsen.

As the next subsection indicates, one effect of these 

conditions is likely to be an increase in the unbanked rate 

from its level just before the pandemic.

The pandemic is also presenting particular challenges 

to households that rely on paper instruments to conduct 

financial transactions; that need or want to visit bank 

branches; that do not have an adequate savings cushion; or that do not have access to responsible, affordable 

credit.

Potential Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the 

Unbanked Rate

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to contribute to a rise 

in the rate of unbanked households, meaning households in which no one has a checking or savings account 

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. Approximately two-thirds of this decline was associated with 

changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. 

households between 2011 and 2019.

Unbanked rates have been consistently higher 

among certain segments of the population, including 

lower-income households, unemployed households, 

and households with volatile income. In 2019, roughly one-quarter of households with less than $15,000 in 

income were unbanked, and the unbanked rate among 

unemployed households was almost four times as high 

as the unbanked rate among employed households. The 

unbanked rate in 2019 among households with income 

that varied from month to month was almost 50 percent 

higher than the unbanked rate among households with 

income that was about the same each month.

Of particular relevance to current economic conditions, the 2013 survey found that one in three households (34.1 percent) that became unbanked in the past 

12 months experienced either a significant income 

loss or a job loss that contributed to their becoming 

unbanked.84

Taken together, these data suggest that the unbanked 

rate is likely to rise from its level just before the 

pandemic.85

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 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 55

deposit may experience delays in receiving government 

stimulus payments.86

The 2015 and 2017 surveys, which asked households how 

they paid bills and received income in a typical month, 

showed that use of paper instruments was much more 

common among unbanked households than among 

banked households.87 For example, 66.1 percent of 

unbanked households in 2017 used cash to pay bills in 

a typical month, compared with 13.4 percent of banked 

households.88 Unbanked households received income in 

a variety of ways, but the most prevalent method was by 

paper check or money order (45.4 percent in 2017), followed by cash (26.5 percent in 2017). In a typical month, 

about half of the unbanked households that received 

income by paper check or money order used a nonbank 

check casher to get the funds. For banked households, 

by far the most prevalent method of receiving income 

was direct deposit into a bank account (90.8 percent 

in 2017).

Nonbank P2P payment services could facilitate some 

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 

banked households.

Visiting Bank Branches

Social distancing guidelines may make bank branch 

visits more challenging.

Physical access to bank branches remains important 

despite the increase in the use of mobile banking and the 

decline in the use of bank tellers for account access.89

Households may rely on bank branches not only to access 

an account but also for a variety of other activities, such 

86 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.

as resolving a problem or asking about products or services. In 2019, 83.0 percent of banked households spoke 

with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch 

(i.e., visited a bank branch) in the past 12 months, and 

28.4 percent visited ten or more times. 

Bank branch visits were prevalent among certain segments of the banked population, including rural households, older households, and households with volatile 

income. For example, in 2019, 87.7 percent of rural banked 

households visited a branch, and 41.6 percent visited ten 

or more times. Because rural households have lower rates 

of home internet and smartphone access, they may find 

it harder to reduce their reliance on branches. In 2019, 

14.8 percent of rural banked households had neither 

smartphone access nor home internet access, compared 

with 7.2 percent of urban banked households and 5.8 percent of suburban banked households. These findings 

suggest that for many banked households, branches and 

the range of services they provide play an important role.

Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies and 

Obtaining Credit

The economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic 

may particularly affect households without an adequate 

savings cushion or without access to responsible, affordable credit. In 2019, 35.8 percent of households did not 

save for unexpected expenses or emergencies. Moreover, 37 percent of adults could not cover an emergency 

expense of $400 using only cash, savings, or a credit 

card paid in full on their next statement.90 As a result, 

many households may need credit to handle unexpected 

changes in income and expenses. In 2017, however, one in 

five households (19.7 percent) likely did not have a credit 

score, which could make it harder for these households to 

obtain credit.91
56 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Certain population segments, including unbanked 

households, 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 save 

or to have access to responsible, affordable credit. For 

example, in 2019, nearly three in four unbanked households (74.0 percent) did not save for unexpected expenses 

or emergencies, and in 2017, 80.2 percent of unbanked 

households likely did not have a credit score, which could 

make it harder for these households to access responsible, affordable credit. 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 57

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Appendix 1. FDIC Technical Notes

1

 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.

The data for this report were collected through an 

FDIC-sponsored supplement (Supplement) to the Current 

Population Survey (CPS) for June 2019. The CPS, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS), is a monthly survey with about 59,000 

households selected for interview each month. The survey is based on a scientific sample that is representative 

of the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, aged 

15 or older.

The CPS is the primary source of information on the labor 

force characteristics of the U.S. population, including 

employment, unemployment, and earnings statistics. It 

also collects data on a variety of demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, marital status, and educational attainment. Additional information about the CPS 

is provided on the Census Bureau’s website.1

The CPS sample consists of independent samples in each 

state and the District of Columbia.2 The sample size for 

each state is set to meet specific precision requirements 

for the unemployment rate estimate.3

2019 Supplement

The sixth Supplement was conducted in June 2019. 

Previous Supplements were conducted in January 2009, 

June 2011, June 2013, June 2015, and June 2017. A primary 

purpose of the Supplement is to estimate the percentage 

of U.S. households that are “unbanked” and to identify the reasons why. The Supplement has also collected 

information since 2009 on household use of a variety of 

bank and nonbank financial transaction services and 

credit products. The Supplement survey instrument used 

in 2019, attached as Appendix 3, included approximately 

60 questions designed to provide this information.

The 2019 instrument was developed in conjunction with 

experts from a nationally recognized survey research 

firm. Consumer focus groups were conducted to assist 

in question development, and the survey instrument 

underwent two rounds of cognitive testing. For a detailed 

description of the 2019 revisions, see Appendix 2. 

Because of changes in the questionnaire, direct comparisons between 2019 and prior-year estimates are not 

possible in some cases.

Eligibility and Exclusions

All households that participated in the June 2019 CPS 

were eligible to participate in the Supplement. However, 

only CPS respondents that specified they had some level 

of participation in their household finances and that 

responded “yes” or “no” to whether someone in their 

household had a checking or savings account (question 

B20) were considered Supplement respondents.4

CPS Response Rate and Coverage Ratio

For the June 2019 CPS, a statistical sample of 59,320 survey-eligible households was selected from the sampling 

frame.5 Of these households, 48,863 participated in the 

CPS, resulting in an 82 percent response rate. There were 

10,457 nonrespondent eligible households, most of which 

refused to participate (83 percent). The remaining 17 percent consisted of households where (a) no one was home 

at the time of the interview, (b) the household respondent 

was temporarily absent, (c) the household could not be 

located, (d) language barriers prevented the interview, or 

(e) other reasons. Because of the availability of translators for many languages, only one percent of nonrespondents (106 households) did not participate as a result of 

language barriers.
58 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Coverage ratios for the CPS measure the percentage of 

persons in the target universe (the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, aged 15 or older) that are included 

in the sampling frame.6 The overall coverage ratio for 

the June 2019 CPS was 89 percent. The missing 11 percent 

(i.e., undercoverage) consists of three groups: (a) persons 

residing in households that are not in the CPS sampling frame, (b) noninstitutional persons not residing 

in households at the time the CPS was conducted, and 

(c) household residents that were not listed as household 

members for the CPS for various reasons. The coverage 

ratios varied across demographic groups. For example, 

among women aged 15 or older, the coverage ratio was 

94 percent for Whites, 80 percent for Blacks, and 87 percent for Hispanics.

Supplement Response Rate

Of the 48,863 households that participated in the CPS, 

32,904 (67 percent) also participated in the Supplement 

(i.e., were Supplement respondents). Taking into account 

the nonresponse to the CPS, the overall response rate for 

the Supplement was 55 percent.

CPS and Supplement Weights

The weights calculated by the Census Bureau for the 

CPS and the Supplement were adjusted to account for 

both nonresponse and undercoverage. These adjustments 

help correct any biases in estimates because of nonresponse and undercoverage, so that results are representative of the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 

aged 15 or older.7

Supplement Item Nonresponse and Imputation

In the 2019 Supplement, nonresponse to individual 

survey questions (i.e., item nonresponse) was addressed 

through imputation, consistent with the Census Bureau’s 

treatment of missing values in the CPS.8 For a given 

Supplement question, item nonresponse occurred when a 

Supplement respondent refused to answer the question, 

6 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).

responded “don’t know,” or dropped out of the Supplement before the question was administered (i.e., the 

household broke off).9 Breakoffs were the most common 

source of item nonresponse.

The Census Bureau implemented “hot deck” allocation for nearly all missing values in the Supplement. 

For a household with a missing value to a given question, hot deck allocation replaced the missing value 

with a response to the same question provided by a 

household with similar characteristics, known as the 

donor household. In general, the characteristics used 

to identify donor households should be associated with 

the outcome variable, Y, and with the indicator variable 

for whether Y is missing. Identifying donors according 

to these criteria reduces both the bias and the variance 

of household estimates.10 Examples of variables used 

to select donor households in the 2019 Supplement 

included household bank account ownership, household income, and the race and age of the householder/

reference person (i.e., the person that owns or rents 

the home).

Some missing values were not imputed with hot deck 

allocation but were instead allocated according to an 

edit rule. For example, an edit rule was applied to households with (a) a missing value for having accessed a bank 

account with a bank teller in the past 12 months (question BA10A) and (b) a response of “no” for having visited 

a bank branch in the past 12 months (question BR10). For 

these households, the missing value for question BA10A 

was set to “no.”

For nearly all questions, item nonresponse due to a breakoff, a response of “don’t know,” or a refusal was treated as a missing value and was imputed.11 For questions 

A20 (satisfaction with banks) and A40 (clarity of banks’ 

communications about account fees), “don’t know” was 

considered a valid response. Therefore, missing values to 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 59

these questions due to a breakoff or refusal were imputed to one of the four explicit answer choices detailed on 

the questionnaire or to “don’t know.” Supporting the 

inclusion of “don’t know” as a valid response for these 

questions, unbanked households were much more likely 

to respond “don’t know” to these questions than they 

were to other Supplement questions. Moreover, qualitative research conducted by the FDIC found that many 

unbanked households lacked familiarity with banks.12

Missing values in previous Supplements were not imputed. The analysis presented in previous survey reports 

handled item nonresponse in different ways. In some 

cases, households with a missing value were dropped 

when computing an estimate, while in other cases, 

households with a missing value were retained and 

reported as “unknown.” The 2019 survey report contains 

many estimated changes in outcome variables between 

2017 and 2019. To avoid bias in these estimates for cases 

where missing values had been retained in previous 

survey years, missing values for earlier survey years were 

dropped from the analysis in the 2019 report.13

Analysis of Supplement Survey Results

Estimating the Share and Number of Unbanked Households

Using Supplement survey results, households were classified as unbanked if they responded “no” to question 

B20, “Do you or anyone else in your household have a 

checking or savings account now?”14 The proportion of 

U.S. households that were unbanked was estimated by 

dividing the sum of the weights of the household respondents that were identified as being unbanked by the sum 

of the weights of all household respondents. For estimated proportions of unbanked households for demographic 

subgroups, the same computational approach was used 

and applied to respondent households in the subgroup.

12 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. 

In addition to presenting estimated proportions, the 

report includes estimated numbers of unbanked and 

banked households. The number of households for a 

given category is estimated as the sum of the weights of 

the sample households in that category. For the entire 

Supplement sample of 32,904 respondent households, 

the sum of the household weights is roughly 131.2 million, which would be an estimate of all U.S. households 

as of June 2019. The Housing Vacancy Survey, another 

survey related to the CPS that uses household controls 

to produce household weights, provided an estimate 

of 122.3 million as the number of households in June 

2019.15 This difference (131.2 million versus 122.3 million) 

is because household weights prepared by the Census 

Bureau for the CPS and for the Supplement are generally the reference person weights and are not adjusted to 

align with household count controls. Household count 

controls were not used to adjust household weights 

because the CPS is a person-level survey rather than a 

household-level survey; therefore, population controls 

were used only in the preparation of person weights. As a 

result, the sum of household weights for a category tends 

to be somewhat higher than the actual household count 

for the category.

Assigning Household Characteristics

This report also contains a number of tables for which 

unbanked rates and other household statistics are 

computed for subgroups defined by a particular socioeconomic or demographic characteristic. The household classification of a socioeconomic or demographic 

variable that is defined at the person level rather than 

the household level (e.g., race/ethnicity, education, or 

employment status) is based on the socioeconomic or 

demographic classification of the householder/reference 

person.16
60 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

The Census Bureau classifies households into different household types. For instance, a family household 

is a household that includes two or more people related 

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 Household Race and Ethnicity

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, 

households are classified into the following racial and 

ethnic categories:18

• “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.

• “American Indian or Alaska Native household” refers 

to a household for which the householder identifies 

as American Indian or Alaska Native alone and not 

Hispanic or Latino.

• “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.

• “White household” refers to a household for which the 

householder identifies as White alone and not Hispanic or Latino.

17 See census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html.

18 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.

• “Two or More Races household” refers to a household 

for which the householder identifies as two or more 

races and not Hispanic or Latino.

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 follows: if the householder is between the ages of 25 and 64 

and either (a) indicates “yes” to any of the six-question 

disability sequence in the CPS or (b) is classified as “not 

in labor force—disabled,” the household is classified as 

“disabled, aged 25 to 64.”19 If the householder is between 

the ages of 25 and 64 and neither condition (a) nor 

(b) above is met, the household is classified as “not disabled, aged 25 to 64.” If the householder is not between 

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 

February 2013, based on data from the 2010 Census and 

the 2006–2010 American Community Surveys. The 2013 

delineations superseded the earlier delineations based on 

2000 Census data, first established by OMB in June 2003.21

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, 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 61

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

and Vermont) and MSA codes for other states.23 Housing units first included in the CPS in May 2014 or later 

were assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 2013 

delineations. These metropolitan area codes consisted only of MSA codes, as housing units in New England 

were given MSA codes as part of the phase-in of the 2013 

delineations.

For the 2017 and 2019 survey data, all housing units were 

assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 2013 

delineations. For the 2015 survey data, approximately 

three-quarters of housing units were assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 2013 delineations, while 

the remaining housing units were assigned metropolitan 

area codes based on the 2003 delineations. To facilitate 

MSA-level estimates using the 2015 survey data, a housing unit with an obsolete 2003 MSA code was assigned 

the corresponding 2013 MSA code.24 A housing unit with a 

NECTA code was assigned the 2013 MSA code that comprised the majority of the NECTA population.25 Overall, 

less than three percent of housing units in the 2015 survey data were affected by these adjustments.

For the 2013 and earlier survey data, all housing units 

were assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 

2003 delineations. For these survey years, metropolitan area estimates are based on the 2003 delineations. 

Because of changes in geographic boundaries (e.g., the 

addition or subtraction of a county), some metropolitan area estimates that use 2015–2019 survey data are 

not directly comparable to the corresponding metropolitan area estimates that use 2013 and earlier survey 

data. In the appendix tables (published separately on 

economicinclusion.gov), a tilde (~) next to an MSA name 

indicates that the MSA was affected by a geographic 

23 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.

boundary change. All MSA names in the tables, however, 

reflect the 2013 delineations.

Statistical Precision of Estimates

To indicate the precision of certain estimates, standard 

errors were calculated based on the variation of the estimates across a set of 160 sample replicates provided by 

the Census Bureau. Details of the calculation of standard errors based on sample replicates (and on the CPS 

methodology in general) are available from the Census 

Bureau.26

Estimated differences discussed in this report are significant at the 10 percent level, unless noted otherwise. 

That is, if the population difference were zero, then the 

probability of obtaining estimates having the observed 

difference or a larger difference would be no more than 

10 percent and could be considerably less. For example, 

the estimated difference in the proportions of U.S. households that were unbanked between 2019 (5.4 percent) and 

2017 (6.5 percent) is -1.1 percentage points. The estimated 

standard error of this difference (computed using the 160 

replicates as described above) is 0.2 percentage points. 

Under the assumption that the true difference in the 

unbanked rate between 2019 and 2017 is zero, the probability of observing the -1.1 percentage point difference 

in our sample data is less than 0.1 percent (the p-value 

reported by statistical software is 0.000).

Certain 2019 report appendix tables include 90 percent 

confidence intervals in addition to point estimates. The 

confidence interval is one way to describe the uncertainty surrounding the estimate. For example, as shown 

in Appendix Table A.2, the estimated proportion of U.S. 

households that were unbanked in 2019 is 5.4 percent, 

and the 90 percent confidence interval around this estimate ranges from 5.1 to 5.6 percent.
62 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

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 lessons learned from the administration of the 2017 survey, 

feedback received in response to the 2017 survey results, 

and an interest in topics not covered in past surveys. For 

example, the 2019 survey included new questions on use 

of nonbank bill payment services and peer-to-peer or 

person-to-person (P2P) payment services in the past 

12 months; frequency of use of nonbank money orders, 

check cashing, bill payment services, and international 

remittances; satisfaction with banks; and perceptions of 

the clarity of banks’ communications about account fees.

To accommodate new questions in the 2019 survey, 

several questions from the 2017 survey were dropped. 

For example, the 2019 survey did not include questions 

on use of a mobile phone for specific banking activities 

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 

Q3, 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 

in having a bank account (2019 UB50). This question 

replaced a question on the likelihood of opening a bank 

account in the next 12 months (2017 Q7).

Three response options on reasons for not having a bank 

account (2017 Q5, 2019 UB55) were revised: 

• “Because bank account fees are unpredictable” 

was changed to “Because bank account fees are too 

unpredictable.”

• “Because banks do not offer products or services you 

need” was changed to “Because banks do not offer 

products and services you need.”

• “Because you do not have enough money to keep 

in an account” was changed to “Because you don’t 

have enough money to meet minimum balance 

requirements.”

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
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 63

The 2017 survey responses were: 

• Bank location or bank’s website

• Store or website that is not a bank

• Government agency

• Employer payroll card

• Family or friends

• Other (Specify)

For households that used bank prepaid cards in the past 

12 months, a new, follow-up question asked whether 

these cards were used at the time of the survey (2019 

PBUSE). For households that used government prepaid 

cards in the past 12 months, a follow-up question on the 

reasons for having these cards (2017 Q112) was dropped. 

Nonbank Financial Transaction Services

The 2019 survey included new questions on use of nonbank bill payment services and P2P payment services 

in the past 12 months. Specifically, all households were 

asked whether they paid bills through a service like 

Western Union or MoneyGram (2019 NBBP10). Households 

were instructed not to include services from a bank. In 

addition, all households were asked whether they used a 

website or app that is not a bank to send or receive money 

within the United States (2019 NBP2P). Examples provided 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).

For households that used nonbank money orders, check 

cashing, bill payment services, or international remittances in the past 12 months, new, follow-up questions 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).

Satisfaction and Clarity

The 2019 survey included new questions on satisfaction 

with banks (2019 A20) and clarity of banks’ communications about account fees (2019 A40). Two versions of each 

question were administered depending on the population 

segment.

On satisfaction, unbanked households that had previously been banked and that did not use a bank prepaid 

card at the time of the survey were asked, “Now, think 

about your experience with the bank your household 

most recently had an account with. How satisfied were 

you with your bank?” Banked households, as well as 

unbanked households that used a bank prepaid card at 

the time of the survey, were asked, “Now, think about 

your experience with your household’s primary bank. 

How satisfied are you with your bank?” 

On clarity, unbanked households that did not use a bank 

prepaid card at the time of the survey were asked, “Now, 

think about banks in general. How clearly do you think 

banks communicate account fees?” Banked households, 

as well as unbanked households that used a bank prepaid 

card at the time of the survey, were asked, “How clearly 

do you think your bank communicates account fees?” 

Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts

The survey question on methods used to access bank 

accounts in the past 12 months (2017 Q2g, 2019 BA10) 

included a reworded list of methods and a new question 

structure for 2019 (separate questions for each method 

instead of “mark all that apply”).

The 2019 survey responses were: 

• 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)

The 2017 survey responses were: 

• 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 

• Mobile banking with text messaging, mobile app, or 

internet browser or email on a mobile phone

• Other (Specify)

Additionally, 2019 BA10 was asked of banked households, 

unbanked households that used a bank prepaid card at 
64 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

the time of the survey, and unbanked households that 

had a bank account in the past 12 months, while 2017 Q2g 

was asked only of banked households. Response options 

on the main account access method (2017 Q2h, 2019 BA15) 

were revised to be consistent with 2019 BA10.

A question on use of a mobile phone for specific banking 

activities in the past 12 months (2017 Q80) was dropped.

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 

“This is a way to receive your tax refund faster than the 

IRS would provide it.” A question on use of other types 

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.

Questions on whether a household had a store credit card; 

auto loan; mortgage, home equity loan, or home equity 

line of credit; student loan; or other personal loans or 

lines of credit from a company other than a bank in the 

past 12 months (2017 Q1600b-e and 2017 Q1600g) were 

dropped. To accommodate the removal of these questions, the wording of questions on whether a household 

had a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover 

credit card (2017 Q1600a, 2019 CCC10) or a personal loan 

or line of credit from a bank (2017 Q1600f, 2019 CPL10) in 

the past 12 months were changed somewhat.27

For households that had applied for a new credit card 

or a personal loan or line of credit at a bank in the past 

12 months, the follow-up question on whether the 

household was turned down or not given as much credit 

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.

• 2017 Q163: “In the past 12 months, did any lender 

or creditor turn down your or someone else in your 

household’s request for new credit or not give you as 

much credit as you applied for?”

• 2019 CA15: “Did the lender or creditor turn down this 

request for new credit or not give as much credit as 

you or someone in your household applied for?”

The question on whether a household thought about 

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: 

• 2017 Q164: “Was there any time in the past 12 months 

that you or someone else in your household thought 

about applying for a new credit card, or a personal 

loan or line of credit at a bank, but changed your mind 

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 

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?”

Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies, Income 

Receipt and Bill Payment in a Typical Month, and Falling 

Behind on Bill Payments

For households that saved for unexpected expenses 

or emergencies in the past 12 months, the follow-up 

question on where the savings were kept (2017 Q171) was 

dropped.

Questions on income receipt and bill payment in a typical month (2017 Q140, 2017 Q141, and 2017 Q150) and on 

whether a household fell behind on bill payments in the 

past 12 months (2017 Q181) were dropped.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 65

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] 
66 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

[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]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 67

[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] 
68 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

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] 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 69

[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]
70 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

[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 [CONTINUE]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 71

[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]
72 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

[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]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 73

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] 
74 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

[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]
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 75

[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]
76 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

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]

<END>

FDIC-012-2020

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation