2013 FDIC

National Survey 

of Unbanked and 

Underbanked 

Households

October 2014

Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Household

Members of the FDIC Unbanked/Underbanked Survey Study Group

Authors:

Susan Burhouse, Karyen Chu, Ryan Goodstein, Joyce Northwood, Yazmin Osaki, Dhruv Sharma

Contributors: 

Keith Ernst, Alicia Lloro, Sherrie Rhine
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Household

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary and Implications............................................................................................................................................................4

2. Background and Objectives.......................................................................................................................................................................... 13

3. Banking Status of U.S. Households............................................................................................................................................................. 15

4. Checking and Savings Account Ownership, and Automatic Transfers......................................................................................... 28

5. Prepaid Debit Cards.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

6. Alternative Financial Services....................................................................................................................................................................... 41

7. Access to Mobile Phones and the Internet ............................................................................................................................................. 50

8. Banking Methods.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 53

9. Implications and Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix A — K.................................................................................................................................................................Published Separately
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Househol

1. Executive Summary and Implications

When households open an account at a federally 

insured depository institution, they establish a mainstream banking relationship. This relationship 

provides opportunities for households to deposit 

funds securely, conduct basic financial transactions, 

accumulate savings, and access credit on fair and 

affordable terms. 

Despite these benefits, many households—referred to 

in this report as “unbanked”—do not have an 

account at an insured institution. Additional households have an account, but have also obtained financial services and products from non-bank, alternative 

financial services (AFS) providers in the prior 12 

months. These households are referred to here as 

“underbanked.” The existence of unbanked and 

underbanked households presents an opportunity for 

banks to expand access to their products and services 

and forge relationships with these underserved 

groups, ultimately increasing economic inclusion.

The FDIC recognizes that public confidence in the 

banking system is strengthened when banks effectively serve the broadest possible set of consumers. As 

a result, the agency is committed to increasing the 

participation of unbanked and underbanked households in the financial mainstream. The FDIC 

National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households represents one contribution to this end. 

Conducted to assess the inclusiveness of the banking 

system, and in partial response to a statutory 

mandate, the biennial survey provides estimates of 

unbanked and underbanked populations. It also seeks 

to provide insights that will inform efforts to better 

meet the needs of these consumers. The FDIC partnered with the U.S. Census Bureau to administer this 

survey in June 2013, collecting responses from 40,998 

households.

Key Findings

Banking Status of U.S. Households

One in thirteen households was unbanked in 2013. 

This proportion decreased from 2011, reflecting 

changed economic conditions and household demographics. An additional one in five households was 

underbanked in 2013. 

• 7.7 percent of households in the United States 

were unbanked in 2013. This proportion represented nearly 9.6 million households composed 

of approximately 16.7 million adults and 8.7 

million children.1

• 20.0 percent (24.8 million) of U.S. households 

were underbanked in 2013, meaning that they 

had a bank account but also used alternative 

financial services (AFS) outside of the banking 

system.2 Approximately 50.9 million adults and 

16.6 million children lived in underbanked 

households.

Figure ES.1 Banking Status Of U.S. Households, 2013

• The unbanked rate has varied from 7.6 percent in 

2009 to 8.2 percent in 2011 and 7.7 percent in 

2013.3

• The 0.5 percentage point decrease in the 

unbanked rate between 2011 and 2013 can be 

explained by differences in the economic 

1 Adults are defined as people aged 16 and older. This is a lower-bound 

estimate of the number of unbanked adults in the United States because it 

is based on the assumption that all adults residing in a “banked” household are banked in the sense that they may benefit from the account. A 

banked household may have one or more unbanked adults; these 

unbanked adults residing in banked households are not included in the 

16.7 million adults figure cited in this report.

2 In the 2013 survey, underbanked households are those that have used 

at least one of the following AFS from non-bank providers in the last 12 

months: money orders, check cashing, remittances, payday loans, refund 

anticipation loans, rent-to-own services, pawn shops loans, or auto title 

loans. Underbanked rates from the three surveys are not directly comparable because of changes in the definition of underbanked households in 

both 2011 and 2013.

3 All reported differences resulting from direct comparisons described in 

the text are statistically significant at the 10 percent level unless otherwise noted. In this case, the 2009 and 2013 estimates are each significantly different from 2011 but not from each other.

Unbanked

 7.7 

Underbanked

 20.0 

Fully

Banked

 67.0 

Banked,

Underbanked

Status

Unknown

 5.3 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Household

conditions and demographic composition of 

households over this period. 

• In particular, compared to 2011, households 

in 2013 had slightly higher levels of employment and income, and were slightly older 

and better educated.4 These characteristics 

are all associated with a higher likelihood of 

having a bank account.

• The highest unbanked rates continued to be 

found among non-Asian minorities, lower-income households, younger households, and 

unemployed households. Relative to 2011, the 

unbanked rates in 2013 were generally similar for 

these groups. One exception is Hispanic 

households. 

• While still relatively high, the unbanked rate 

for Hispanic households decreased to 17.9 

percent in 2013 from 20.1 percent in 2011. 

• Improvements in economic conditions and 

changing demographics among Hispanic 

households over this period explain nearly 

half of the reduction in the unbanked rate 

among this population. 

• In particular, relative to 2011, Hispanic 

households in 2013 experienced higher levels 

of employment, income, and education. 

These characteristics are all associated with a 

higher likelihood of having a bank account.

• Among working-age disabled households, 18.4 

percent were unbanked and 28.1 percent were 

underbanked in 2013.5 This is the first time that 

the survey has reported estimates for these 

households.

4 Household characteristics, such as race, age, education, and employment, are taken to be those of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., 

“householder”), unless the characteristic is one defined at the household 

level, such as income or household type. For convenience, some abbreviated language will be used to refer to these household characteristics. 

For example, the term “black household” refers to a household for which 

the householder has been identified as black. Note that other members of 

a household could have different characteristics from those of the householder. For instance, an unemployed household is defined as a household 

whose householder is unemployed, but other household members could 

be employed and earning income. The income measures included in this 

report reflect the income earned by all household members and not only 

the householder.

5 Working-age is considered to be between age 25 and 64. Consistent 

with our approach for other household characteristics such as employment status, we classify a household as one with disabilities based on the 

characteristics of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., “householder”). 

Please refer to Appendix I for a detailed discussion of how we classified 

households as disabled.

Checking and Savings Account Ownership, and 

Automatic Transfers

Checking and savings account ownership rates 

remained similar to previous years. For the first time, 

the survey asked about automatic transfers, finding 

that most households use them primarily in connection with checking accounts.

• The vast majority of all U.S. households (88.4 

percent) owned a checking account in 2013, 

while less than seven in ten (68.8 percent) owned 

a savings account. 

• Four in five (80.3 percent) banked households had 

money directly deposited into a bank account or 

automatically transferred funds between 

accounts: 

• 94.5 percent of these households directly 

deposited or automatically transferred funds 

into checking accounts and 17.3 percent into 

savings accounts.6

• Among the subset of households with savings 

accounts, 22.0 percent direct deposited or 

automatically transferred funds into a savings 

account.

Household Banking Status Transitions

For the first time, the survey asked households about 

both recent entrances and exits from the banking 

system as well as the circumstances affecting those 

transitions. Overall, economic events and motivations, such as job loss or opening an account to 

receive direct deposits, are found to have a stronger 

effect on banking status transitions than changes in 

household structure, such as marriage.

• Consistent with previous survey results, slightly 

less than half (45.9 percent) of unbanked households in 2013 were previously banked, which 

represented 3.6 percent of all U.S. households.

• In 2013, 0.7 percent of all U.S. households (or 

almost one in ten unbanked households) became 

unbanked within the last 12 months, while 1.6 

percent became banked in the last 12 months. 

6 13.2 percent of these direct deposits or transfers were to both checking 

and savings accounts. As a result, the total does not sum to 100 percent. 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Househol

Figure ES.2 Previous Banking Status Of Unbanked 

Households 

• While relatively small proportions of U.S. households experienced major life events in the past 

year, households that transitioned in or out of the 

banking system were more likely to have experienced certain events:

• Among households that recently became 

unbanked, 34.1 percent experienced either a 

significant income loss or a job loss that they 

said contributed to the household becoming 

unbanked. 

• Among households that recently became 

banked, 19.4 percent reported that a new job 

contributed to their opening a bank account.

• About one-third (34.2 percent) of recently banked 

households also reported that receiving direct 

deposits was the main reason they opened an 

account. This was the most frequently reported 

reason, followed by “paying for everyday 

purchases, writing checks and/or paying bills,” 

reported by one-quarter (25.0 percent) of recently 

banked households.

Reasons Households Were Unbanked

Unbanked households cited both economic and attitudinal reasons for remaining outside the banking 

system. 

• A majority (57.5 percent) of unbanked households 

reported not having enough money to keep in an 

account or meet a minimum balance as one 

reason they did not have an account and slightly 

more than a third (35.6 percent) of all unbanked 

households reported this to be the main reason.

• Roughly one in three (34.2 percent) unbanked 

households reported their dislike of or distrust in 

banks as one reason they were unbanked and 

slightly more than one in seven (14.9 percent) 

unbanked households reported this to be the 

main reason.

• Almost one in three unbanked households (30.8 

percent) reported high or unpredictable account 

fees as one reason they did not have accounts and 

about 13 percent (13.4 percent) of unbanked 

households reported this to be the main reason.

• Previously banked households (almost one in 

five or 17.7 percent) were more likely to say 

high or unpredictable fees were the main 

reason they were unbanked compared with 

households that never had an account (one in 

ten or 9.8 percent).

Future Banking Plans of Unbanked Households

Higher proportions of households that previously 

had an account reported being likely to open one in 

the next 12 months compared with households that 

had never been banked. How long ago a household 

last had a bank account also appeared to be correlated 

with intentions to rejoin the banking system. These 

results suggest that many consumers who have had 

experience, especially recent experience, with a bank 

account find value in having one.

• Almost half (48.6 percent) of unbanked households that previously had an account expressed 

an intention to open another in the next 12 

months compared with only about one-quarter 

(25.2 percent) of households that had never been 

banked.

• Almost three out of four (74.8 percent) unbanked 

households that recently had a bank account, and 

42.7 percent of unbanked households that had an 

account more than a year ago, reported being 

somewhat or very likely to open another in the 

next 12 months. 

Had bank account

within last year 

 8.9 

Had bank account more than 1 yr ago 

 36.5 

Never had bank account 

 52.6 

Prev banked, recency 

unknown 0.5 

Unknown 1.5
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Household

Figure ES.3 Reasons Households Were Unbanked 

Prepaid Debit Card Use

Prepaid debit cards have emerged in recent years as a 

new payment method that some consumers use to 

address their financial transaction needs. Similar to a 

checking account, these cards can be used to pay bills, 

withdraw cash at ATMs, make purchases, deposit 

checks, and receive direct deposits. Many, although 

not all, such cards store funds in accounts eligible for 

deposit insurance. The survey results suggest that 

sizeable proportions of unbanked households and, to 

a lesser degree, underbanked households, relied on 

prepaid cards for many of the same purposes that 

households associate with checking accounts. Moreover, while some fully banked households used 

prepaid cards, unbanked and underbanked households accounted for a majority of prepaid card users.

• Nearly eight percent (7.9) of all households used 

prepaid cards in the last 12 months.

• Unbanked households had the highest rate of 

use: 22.3 percent of unbanked households 

used a prepaid card in the last 12 months, 

compared with 13.1 percent of underbanked 

households and 5.3 percent of fully banked 

households.

• Within the group of unbanked households, 

recently unbanked households had the highest rate of prepaid card use: 28.8 percent of 

this subset used a prepaid card in the last 12 

months, compared with 22.0 percent of 

longer-term unbanked households.

• The highest rate of growth in prepaid card use 

was among unbanked households: In 2013, more 

than a quarter (27.1 percent) of unbanked households reported having ever used a prepaid card, 

up from 17.8 percent in 2011 and 12.2 percent in 

2009. 

• Unbanked prepaid card users appeared to more 

actively use their prepaid cards compared with 

other prepaid card users:

• They were more likely to have reloaded their 

prepaid cards in the past 12 months (57.8 

percent), relative to underbanked (42.9 

percent) and fully banked (23.4 percent) 

households. 

Other

Banks do not oer needed products or services

Inconvenient hours or locations

Privacy

ID, credit, or banking history problems

Account fees are too high or unpredictable

Don’t like dealing with or don’t trust banks

Do not have enough money

Cited as a reason

Main reason

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

7.4

12.5

1.2

10.5

2.6

6.8

3.7

26.4

6.8

16.8

13.4

30.8

14.9

34.2

35.6

57.5
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Househol

• Unbanked households were also about two 

and a half times more likely to have used a 

prepaid card in the last 30 days (16.8 percent) 

compared with underbanked households (6.6 

percent) and almost nine times more likely 

than fully banked households (1.9 percent).

• A much higher proportion of unbanked households that used prepaid cards in the last 12 

months reported doing so primarily to meet their 

financial transaction needs. Specifically, 79.4 

percent of these households cited “to pay for 

every day purchases or bills” or “to receive 

payments” as the main reason for using a prepaid 

card, compared with 53.3 percent of underbanked and 37.6 percent of fully banked households that used prepaid cards in the same period.

• A majority of prepaid card users were unbanked 

and underbanked households. More than half 

(55.0 percent) of the households that used 

prepaid cards in the last 12 months and about 

two-thirds (66.6 percent) of the households that 

used prepaid cards in the last 30 days were 

unbanked or underbanked.

• Almost half (46.5 percent) of unbanked households that used prepaid cards in the last 12 

months reported being “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to open a bank account in the next 

12 months, compared with 32.6 percent of 

unbanked households that had not used prepaid 

cards.

• Relatively few households (one in ten or 10.7 

percent) that used prepaid cards obtained their 

card from a bank branch. Among households 

that used prepaid cards, fully banked households 

were the most likely (15.4 percent) to have 

obtained their cards from a bank branch, while 

unbanked households were least likely (4.2 

percent) to have done so. 

Alternative Financial Services Use

One in four households reported obtaining either 

financial transaction services or credit from non-bank 

providers in the prior 12 months.7 Households overall reported that “grocery, liquor, convenience, or 

drug stores” were the most common locations for 

obtaining transaction alternative financial services 

(AFS), but unbanked households were more likely to 

obtain these services from standalone AFS providers.

• Consistent with previous survey findings, about 

one in four households (24.9 percent) used at 

least one AFS in the previous 12 months, and 

12.0 percent of all households used an AFS in the 

last 30 days. 

• Transaction AFS products, used by 21.9 

percent of all households in the last 12 

months, continue to be more widely used 

than credit AFS products, which were used 

by 7.0 percent of all households. 

7 The 2013 survey asks about non-bank use of three transaction products 

(money orders, check cashing, remittances) and five credit products 

(payday loans, pawn shop, refund anticipation loans, rent-to-own 

services, and auto title loans). Auto title loans were first asked about in 

the 2013 survey, so the AFS use estimates in this report are not directly 

comparable to estimates in past reports.

Figure ES.4 Banking Status Of Households That Used Prepaid 

Cards In The Last 12 Months

Figure ES.5 Banking Status Of Households That Used Prepaid 

Cards In The Last 30 Days 

Unbanked

 21.8 

Underbanked

 33.2 

Fully

Banked

 44.6 

Banked,

Underbanked

Status

Unknown

 0.5 

Unbanked

 33.2 

Underbanked

 33.4 

Fully

Banked

 33.0 

Banked,

Underbanked

Status

Unknown

 0.4 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Household

• AFS use continues to be relatively high among 

unbanked households: 63.2 percent used an AFS 

in the last 12 months, and 47.0 percent used an 

AFS in the last 30 days.

• The most common locations from which households obtained transaction AFS were “grocery, 

liquor, convenience, or drug stores.” 

• For example, among households that used 

non-bank check cashing, 37.8 percent did so 

at a “grocery, liquor, convenience, or drug 

store” while 31.4 percent used a large retail or 

department store and 24.3 percent cashed 

their checks at standalone AFS providers. 

• Among transaction AFS users, unbanked households were more likely than underbanked households to use stand-alone AFS providers. For 

example, 29.3 percent of unbanked households 

that used non-bank check cashing went to standalone AFS providers, compared to 20.6 percent of 

underbanked non-bank check cashing users.

Methods of Banking 

For the first time, the 2013 survey examines the various ways households access their bank accounts.8

 The 

results show that bank tellers and online banking 

were the primary methods relied on by the largest 

share of banked households – about one-third of 

banked households primarily used bank tellers and 

another third primarily used online banking. Underbanked households were less likely to use online 

banking as their primary means of access, but were 

more likely to use mobile devices as a primary 

method. For those that did primarily use electronic 

means (online or mobile device) to access their 

account, most used at least two additional methods 

and many also reported using a teller. These results 

suggest that electronic means of access continue to be 

a supplement rather than a wholesale substitute for 

tellers. 

8 The survey asks whether the household used any of the following 

methods to access their account in the past 12 months: bank tellers, 

ATMs/kiosks, online banking, mobile banking, or telephone banking.

Figure ES.6 Methods Used To Access Bank Accounts In The Last 12 Months

Other

Mobile Banking

Telephone Banking

Online Banking

ATM/Kiosk

Bank Teller

Method Used

Main Method Used

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.8

1.0

5.7

23.2

3.3

26.1

32.9

55.1

24.4

69.6

32.2

78.8
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

• Most banked households (71.1 percent) used 

multiple methods to access their bank accounts.9

• Many households used bank tellers to access their 

bank account. Nearly four out of five households 

(78.8 percent) used a bank teller in the past 12 

months, one in three (32.2 percent) used bank 

tellers as their primary method of account access, 

and 17.5 percent used bank tellers as their only 

method of account access. 

• Roughly half (54.7 percent) of households age 

65 or older, 55.7 percent of households without a high school degree, and 47.5 percent of 

households with annual income under 

$15,000 primarily used bank tellers to access 

their account. 

• Use of online banking was also quite common. 

Over half (55.1 percent) of banked households 

accessed their account online in the past 12 

months, and one in three (32.9 percent) used 

online banking as their primary means of account 

access. Underbanked households were less likely 

to have used online banking as their main banking method (26.6 percent) compared with fully 

banked households (35.1 percent). 

• Among households that primarily used either 

online or mobile banking, use of additional 

methods was common. For example, households 

that primarily used online banking used a median 

of two additional methods to access their account 

while those that primarily relied on mobile banking used a median of three additional methods. 

One commonly used additional method was bank 

tellers, which were used by more than 70 percent 

of both groups. 

Use of Mobile Technology and Mobile Banking

A majority of households reported having access to 

smartphones, and almost one in four reported using 

those devices to engage in mobile banking in the 

prior 12 months.10 While a significant share of 

unbanked households had access to smartphones, 

their access lagged the population as a whole. In 

contrast, underbanked households were both more 

9 About 5 percent of banked households reported not having accessed 

their bank account in the past 12 months or did not report whether they 

had accessed their account in the last 12 months. These households are 

excluded from the estimates of bank account access presented here.

10 Mobile banking was defined in the 2013 survey questionnaire as using 

text messages, mobile apps, or using a mobile phone’s Internet browser 

or email to access a bank account.

likely to have access to smartphones than the general 

population and to have used them to engage in 

mobile banking. 

• The vast majority of households (82.7 percent) 

had access to a mobile phone, of which two 

thirds (67.4 percent of all with mobile phone 

access or 55.7 percent overall) were smartphones. 

• Relative to fully banked households (86.8 

percent), underbanked households were 

somewhat more likely to have had access to 

mobile phones (90.5 percent) and smartphones (64.5 percent of underbanked households compared with 59.0 percent of fully 

banked households). 

• Notably smaller, but still significant, proportions of unbanked households had access to 

mobile phones (68.1 percent) and smartphones (33.1 percent).

• Overall, 23.2 percent of banked households used 

mobile banking in the last 12 months, and a 

greater share of underbanked households (29.2 

percent) than fully banked households (21.7 

percent) had used mobile banking.

• Among mobile banking users, underbanked 

households were considerably more likely (32.4 

percent) than the fully banked (21.6 percent) to 

use mobile banking as their main banking 

method. In contrast, fully banked mobile banking 

users were significantly more likely (54.2 percent) 

to use online banking as their main banking 

method than the underbanked (38.1 percent).

• Monitoring of account balance or recent transactions was the most common mobile banking 

activity (86.0 percent of mobile banking users). 

Only a quarter (25.5 percent) of households that 

used mobile banking used it to deposit a check. 

Underbanked households were more likely (51.5 

percent) to have used mobile text alerts than fully 

banked households (44.6 percent). 

Implications 

The survey results presented in this report suggest 

implications for policymakers, financial institutions 

and other stakeholders who are working to improve 

access to mainstream financial services.

1. Entrances and exits from the banking system are 

often associated with changes in employment 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

and income. Interventions designed to help 

households maintain and renew their banking 

relationships through economic challenges may 

reduce unbanked rates over time. 

Banking status is dynamic: many households cycle in 

and out of the banking system. For these households, 

financial life events, such as job loss, significant 

income loss, or a new job, appear to be important 

explanations for why they enter or exit the banking 

system. 

Stakeholders might consider ways to cushion the 

impact of adverse financial shocks on a household’s 

ability or desire to maintain a bank account. In 

particular, opportunities may exist for forbearance of 

fees, flexible product design, or direct interventions. 

Interventions could include targeted outreach or 

financial education for recently unemployed households to encourage them to remain in the banking 

system, for example. 

The most frequently reported reason recently banked 

households cited for opening an account was to 

receive direct deposits. This finding suggests that 

opportunities may exist for bringing newly employed 

consumers into the financial mainstream by educating them on the use of bank accounts and on 

personal financial management. Opportunities also 

may exist to reach out to employers that do not yet 

offer direct deposit to help them lower costs and help 

their employees better understand opportunities 

offered by the mainstream banking system.

2. Unbanked households are increasingly turning 

to general purpose reloadable prepaid cards to 

address their financial transaction needs and are 

generally obtaining them at non-bank locations. 

Opportunities may exist to meet these consumers’ needs within the banking system.

Prepaid card use is higher among unbanked households than other banking status groups, and has been 

growing rapidly. Although many unbanked prepaid 

card users, like other unbanked households, feel that 

they cannot have a bank account because they “do 

not have enough money to keep in an account or 

meet a minimum balance” or because “bank fees are 

too high or unpredictable,” these households do have 

financial transaction needs. Many unbanked prepaid 

card users are using non-bank prepaid cards, instead 

of banking services, to make and receive payments. 

Banking products such as a low-cost, safe transaction 

account or a bank prepaid debit card that meets the 

specifications of the FDIC Safe Accounts Template 

could help meet these financial needs while building 

banking relationships.11

In addition, many prepaid card users have prior 

experience with banking services and are relatively 

more inclined to enter a banking relationship going 

forward. Specifically, unbanked prepaid card users 

are more likely than nonusers to have had a bank 

account in the past, and to say they are likely to open 

an account in the future. This implies that, relative to 

other unbanked households, unbanked prepaid card 

users may be particularly receptive to entering or 

rejoining the banking system.

3. Mobile banking is a potential tool to expand 

economic inclusion but branches continue to 

play an important role for many consumers, 

including those who are underbanked.

Mobile banking has the potential to help expand 

economic inclusion. Mobile technologies provide the 

anytime, anyplace convenience that is highly valued 

by underserved consumers. The survey results show 

that mobile and smartphones are accessible to underserved populations, and that many underbanked 

households are already using mobile banking. Smartphones are more prevalent among underbanked 

households than among the fully banked. Underbanked households also are more likely than fully 

banked households to use mobile banking and more 

likely to use it as their primary banking channel. 

Mobile technologies might also become useful tools 

for bringing unbanked households into the financial 

mainstream. While mobile phone ownership is less 

common among unbanked households than among 

the underbanked and fully banked, it is still sizable. 

Innovations such as mobile account opening could 

play a role in expanding access to banking for the 

unbanked. 

In order for mobile banking to help promote 

economic inclusion, it is important that mobile banking offerings be designed and implemented in ways 

that are accessible and beneficial to the underserved. 

For example, to fully avail themselves of mobile 

banking opportunities, users must often have access 

to an online banking account. This could prevent 

underserved consumers who cannot or do not wish 

to use online banking from accessing and enjoying 

the benefits of mobile banking services. 

11 The FDIC Model Safe Accounts template provides insured institutions 

with guidelines on offering cost-effective transaction and savings 

accounts that are safe and affordable for consumers. See https://www.

fdic.gov/consumers/template/.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Notably, the rise of mobile banking as a channel has 

not rendered other modes of banking unimportant, 

and non-mobile channels should continue to have a 

role in economic inclusion and outreach efforts. 

Other banking modes continue to be widely used by 

both underbanked and fully banked households. 

Traditional banking channels, such as branches, 

provide functions not commonly available through 

online and mobile banking. In particular, FDIC pilot 

studies have found that branch staff play an important role in making consumers aware of products, 

providing basic financial education, and growing 

their banking relationships.12 As banking technologies continue to evolve, it is important to continue 

tracking how households access banking services, and 

to assess opportunities to increase banking engagement with underserved consumers across all relevant 

channels. 

12 Rae-Ann Miller, Susan Burhouse, Luke Reynolds and Aileen Sampson, 

“A Template for Success: The FDIC’s Small Dollar Loan Pilot Program,” 

FDIC Quarterly 2010, Volume 4, No. 2 and Sherrie Rhine and Susan 

Burhouse, “FDIC Model Safe Accounts Pilot: Final Report,” April 2012.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

2. Background and Objectives

A. Background

When households open an account at a federally 

insured depository institution, they establish a mainstream banking relationship. This relationship 

provides opportunities for households to deposit 

funds securely, conduct basic financial transactions, 

accumulate savings, and access credit on fair and 

affordable terms. 

Despite these benefits, many households—referred to 

in this report as “unbanked”—do not have an 

account at an insured institution. Additional households have an account, but have also obtained financial services and products from non-bank, alternative 

financial services (AFS) providers in the prior 12 

months. These households are referred to here as 

“underbanked.” The existence of unbanked and 

underbanked households presents an opportunity for 

banks to expand access to their products and services 

and forge relationships with these underserved 

groups, ultimately increasing economic inclusion.

The FDIC recognizes that public confidence in the 

banking system is strengthened when banks effectively serve the broadest possible set of consumers. As 

a result, the agency is committed to increasing the 

participation of unbanked and underbanked households in the financial mainstream by ensuring that all 

Americans have access to safe, secure, and affordable 

banking services. The FDIC National Survey of 

Unbanked and Underbanked Households represents 

one contribution to this end. 

Conducted to assess the inclusiveness of the banking 

system, and in partial response to a statutory 

mandate, this biennial survey provides estimates of 

unbanked and underbanked populations.1 It also 

seeks to provide insights that will inform efforts to 

better meet the needs of these consumers.

1 The household survey is a key component of the FDIC’s efforts to 

comply with a congressional mandate contained in section 7 of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 

(Pub. L. 109–173), which 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. 

The FDIC conducts the household survey in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau. Specifically, the 

FDIC sponsors a special supplement on unbanked 

and underbanked households that is administered in 

conjunction with Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS).

This report presents the results of the 2013 FDIC 

National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households. The survey was conducted in June 2013 

and collected responses from 40,998 households2 (see 

FDIC Technical Note in Appendix I for additional 

details).

The results of this survey complement other FDIC 

efforts and initiatives to increase sustainable and safe 

access to the financial mainstream. For more information on those efforts and for additional resources 

from this survey, including the ability to query the 

underlying data, readers should visit http://www.

economicinclusion.gov. 

The first FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and 

Underbanked Households was conducted in January 

2009, and the second survey was conducted in June 

2011. Results from the 2009 and 2011 surveys are also 

available at http://www.economicinclusion.gov.

The FDIC encourages researchers, policy makers, 

consumer and community groups, and financial 

institutions to use the publicly available data to 

improve understanding of the issues and challenges 

underserved households perceive when deciding how 

and where to conduct financial transactions. The 

information provided in this report, as well future 

analysis produced with the publicly available data, 

will contribute to efforts to create sustainable banking 

opportunities for a broad set of consumers. 

B. What’s New

Revisions to the 2013 Survey Instrument

The 2013 survey instrument is similar to the 2011 

survey. However, a few important changes were made 

to provide greater insight into the circumstances of 

unbanked and underbanked households. The details 

2 A total of 53,405 households participated in the June 2013 Current 

Population Survey. Of these households, 40,998 (77 percent) also participated in the Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement.
2013 FDIC Nat

onal SurveonbnkaUndenkd Hoeholdsctober 2014 1

of these changes, summarized below, are provided in 

Appendix J. 

The changes to the 2013 survey instrument broadly 

fall into five areas: 

First, questions were added to explore household 

exits from and entrances into the banking system 

over the prior year and whether major financial and 

non-financial life events were associated with these 

entrances and exits. A new question also asked recent 

entrants about reasons for opening an account that 

were not related to a life event. And existing ques-

tions on the reasons households were unbanked were 

revised.

Second, questions on direct deposits and automatic 

transfers into bank accounts were added to provide 

greater detail about the use of automatic transfers 

into different account types by households with 

different characteristics.

Third, questions were added to better understand 

households’ use of general purpose reloadable 

prepaid debit cards, an emerging payment instru-

ment. Many, although not all, such cards store funds 

in accounts eligible for deposit insurance, and some 

of these cards are issued directly by banks to 

consumers. 

Fourth, questions on households’ use of auto title 

loans were added and use of these loans was one type 

of Alternative Financial Service (AFS) used to iden-

tify underbanked households in the 2013 report. In 

addition, questions were added on the locations from 

which households obtained transaction AFS 

products.

Finally, questions were added to explore households’ 

access to and use of technology such as smartphones, 

which could provide additional opportunities to 

establish and deepen banking relationships. In part, 

to place answers to those questions in context, ques-

tions were also added on the broader set of methods 

that households used to access their bank accounts.

While differences over time in survey results are of 

interest, comparability of the 2013 results to certain 

2009 and 2011 estimates is limited or not possible 

due to differences across the surveys. For example, 

underbanked estimates are not comparable across the 

three surveys due to different types of AFS that were 

used in each year to identify underbanked 

households. 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

3. Banking Status of U.S. Households

In 2013, an estimated 7.7 percent of households in 

the United States (approximately one in thirteen 

households) did not have a checking or savings 

account and, for the purposes of this report, are 

considered unbanked. This proportion represented 

nearly 9.6 million households in which approximately 

16.7 million adults and 8.7 million children lived.1

An additional 20.0 percent (24.8 million) of U.S. 

households had a bank account but also used alternative financial services (AFS) outside of the banking 

system. For the purposes of this report, these households are considered underbanked. Underbanked 

households are defined as those households that had 

a checking or savings account or both, and had used 

at least one of the following AFS from non-bank 

providers in the last 12 months: money orders, check 

cashing, remittances, payday loans, refund anticipation loans, rent-to-own services, pawn shops loans, or 

auto title loans.2 Approximately 50.9 million adults 

and 16.6 million children lived in underbanked 

households in 2013.3 Approximately 5.3 percent of 

U.S. households were banked but information about 

their use of AFS was insufficient to determine 

whether they were underbanked.

Most households in the United States (67.0 percent) 

had at least one bank account and had not, in the 

past 12 months, used any of the types of AFS 

included in the survey.4 These households are considered fully banked.

1 Adults are defined as people age 16 and older. This is a lower-bound 

estimate of the number of unbanked adults in the United States because it 

is based on the assumption that all adults residing in a “banked” household are banked in the sense that they may benefit from the account. A 

banked household may have one or more unbanked adults; these 

unbanked adults residing in banked households are not included in the 

16.7 million adults figure cited in this report.

2 Auto title loans are loans in which consumers borrow using as collateral the title of the car or cars that they own. These are not loans used to 

purchase an automobile.

3 This is an upper-bound estimate of the total number of underbanked 

adults in the United States because it is based on the assumption that all 

adults residing in an underbanked household are underbanked. However, 

an underbanked household may have one or more adults who are not 

underbanked.

4 Fully banked households may have never used AFS, used AFS more 

than a year ago, or may have, in the past 12 months, used types of AFS 

not included in this survey.

Figure 3.1 Banking Status Of U.S. Households

Changes in Banking Status 2009-2013

The unbanked rate has varied from 7.6 percent in 

2009 to 8.2 percent in 2011 to 7.7 in 2013.5 The 

decrease in the unbanked rate between 2011 and 2013 

can be explained by differences in the economic 

conditions and demographic composition of households over this period.6

 In particular, compared to 

2011, households in 2013 had slightly higher levels of 

employment and income, and were slightly older and 

better educated. These characteristics are all associated with lower unbanked rates.7

5 All reported differences resulting from direct comparisons described in 

the text are statistically significant at the 10 percent level unless otherwise noted. In this case, the 2009 and 2013 estimates are each significantly different from the 2011 estimate but not from each other.

6 Differences in the economic conditions and demographic composition 

of households in the 2011 and 2013 surveys account for about 80 percent 

of the difference in the unbanked rates across these two years. After 

accounting for these differences, the 2011 and 2013 unbanked rates are 

no longer statistically significantly different from each other.

7 For example, 29.0 percent of households in the 2013 survey had 

incomes of at least $75,000 compared with 26.6 percent of households in 

the 2011 survey. And 15.4 percent of households in the 2013 survey had 

incomes of less than $15,000 compared with 16.2 percent of households in 

the 2011 survey. In 2013, 0.5 percent of households with incomes of at 

least $75,000 were unbanked and 27.7 percent of households with 

incomes of less than $15,000 were unbanked. Because of such large 

differences in unbanked rates across income groups, the differences in 

income between the 2011 and 2013 surveys explain a portion of the difference in the overall unbanked rates between 2011 and 2013. 

Unbanked 

 7.7 

Underbanked 

 20.0 

Fully

Banked 

 67.0 

Banked,

Underbanked

Status

Unknown 

 5.3 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 3.2 Unbanked Households By Year

Underbanked rates from the three surveys are not 

directly comparable because of changes in the definition of underbanked households in both 2011 and 

2013. In 2013, the definition of underbanked includes 

the use of auto title loans, which was not considered 

in 2011. Including the use of auto title loans has a 

very small effect on the share of underbanked households – it increases the underbanked rate by 0.3 

percentage points. Excluding the use of auto title 

loans, the 2013 underbanked rates remained at similar levels relative to 2011.8

Banking Status and Household Characteristics

The share of unbanked and underbanked households 

continued to vary significantly by households’ socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (see 

Appendix Table A-1a, included below).9 The highest 

unbanked and underbanked rates were found among 

8 Excluding the use of auto title loans, the proportion of underbanked 

households decreased, from 20.1 percent in 2011 to 19.8 percent in 2013. 

However, relative to 2011, the proportion of unknown answers for most of 

the alternative financial services questions generally doubled, which 

resulted in a higher share of banked households whose underbanked 

status could not be determined (from 2.9 percent in 2011 to 5.2 percent in 

2013 when excluding auto title loans). Excluding households with unknown 

underbanked status, the underbanked rate stayed relatively constant: 20.7 

percent in 2011 and 20.9 percent in 2013. Regardless of whether unknowns 

are excluded, the difference in the underbanked rate between 2013 and 

2011 is not statistically significant.

9 Household characteristics, such as race, age, education, and employment, are taken to be those of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., 

“householder”), unless the characteristic is one defined at the household 

level, such as income or household type. For convenience, some abbreviated language will be used to refer to these household characteristics. 

For example, the term “black household” refers to a household for which 

the householder has been identified as black. Note that other members of 

a household could have different characteristics from those of the householder. For instance, an unemployed household is defined as a household 

whose householder is unemployed, but other household members could 

be employed and earning income. The income measures included in this 

report reflect the income earned by all household members and not only 

the householder.

2009 2011 2013

0

2

4

6

8

10

7.6 8.2 7.7

Appendix Table A-1a Banking Status By Household Characteristics, 2013

For all households, row percent

Characteristics

 Number of 

Households (1000s) 

Percent of 

Households Unbanked (Percent)

Banked: 

Underbanked 

(Percent)

Banked: Fully 

Banked (Percent)

Banked: 

Underbanked Status 

Unknown (Percent)

All 123,750 100 7.7 20.0 67.0 5.3

Household Type

Married couple 59,102 100 3.4 17.7 73.9 5.0

Unmarried female-headed family 15,802 100 18.4 29.2 47.5 4.9

Unmarried male-headed family 6,327 100 13.2 28.3 53.7 4.8

Female individual 22,150 100 7.4 17.2 69.4 6.0

Male individual 20,240 100 10.7 20.0 63.7 5.7

Other 128 100 16.3 17.5 58.6 7.6

Race/Ethnicity

Black 16,801 100 20.5 33.1 40.0 6.3

Hispanic 14,948 100 17.9 28.5 48.4 5.1

Asian 5,882 100 2.2 17.9 73.4 6.6

American Indian/Alaskan 1,464 100 16.9 25.5 53.0 4.6

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 314 100 6.1 25.1 64.5 4.2

White non-Black non-Hispanic 84,310 100 3.6 15.9 75.4 5.0
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Appendix Table A-1a Banking Status By Household Characteristics, 2013

For all households, row percent

Characteristics

 Number of 

Households (1000s) 

Percent of 

Households Unbanked (Percent)

Banked: 

Underbanked 

(Percent)

Banked: Fully 

Banked (Percent)

Banked: 

Underbanked Status 

Unknown (Percent)

Other non-Black non-Hispanic NA NA NA NA NA NA

Spanish only language spoken

Spanish is not the only language 

spoken 121,097 100 7.1 19.9 67.6 5.3

Spanish is only language spoken 2,654 100 34.9 23.7 38.1 3.3

Nativity

U.S.-born 106,397 100 6.9 19.1 69.0 5.1

Foreign born citizen 9,252 100 4.7 24.0 64.6 6.7

Foreign born non citizen 8,102 100 22.7 28.0 43.9 5.4

Age Group

15 to 24 years 6,244 100 15.7 30.8 48.8 4.6

25 to 34 years 20,464 100 12.5 24.7 58.3 4.6

35 to 44 years 21,408 100 9.0 23.8 62.5 4.6

45 to 54 years 24,551 100 7.5 21.9 65.4 5.2

55 to 64 years 22,710 100 5.6 17.7 71.7 5.0

65 years or more 28,372 100 3.5 11.6 78.2 6.7

Disability Status

Disabled 10,841 100 18.4 28.1 49.0 4.5

Not Disabled 78,293 100 7.2 21.1 66.8 4.9

Not Applicable 34,616 100 5.7 15.1 72.9 6.3

Education

No high school degree 13,871 100 25.1 24.1 46.3 4.6

High school degree 33,684 100 10.8 21.9 61.7 5.6

Some college 36,007 100 5.6 23.0 66.2 5.2

College degree 40,188 100 1.1 14.3 79.3 5.3

Employment Status

Employed 75,587 100 5.4 21.7 67.8 5.0

Unemployed 5,436 100 23.0 25.3 47.8 3.8

Not in labor force 42,727 100 9.9 16.3 67.9 5.9

Family Income

Less than $15,000 19,044 100 27.7 22.4 45.2 4.7

Between $15,000 and $30,000 21,763 100 11.4 25.0 57.9 5.7

Between $30,000 and $50,000 24,496 100 5.1 23.3 65.7 5.9

Between $50,000 and $75,000 22,552 100 1.7 19.8 73.2 5.2

At Least $75,000 35,895 100 0.5 13.6 81.0 4.9

Homeownership

Homeowner 80,136 100 2.6 15.5 76.7 5.2

Non-homeowner 43,614 100 17.3 28.2 49.2 5.3

Geographic Region

Northeast 22,199 100 6.8 19.3 68.4 5.5

Midwest 27,315 100 6.4 16.9 71.4 5.2

South 46,738 100 9.2 23.5 62.1 5.2

West 27,498 100 7.4 17.6 69.6 5.3
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

non-Asian minorities, lower-income households, 

younger households, unemployed households and 

working-age disabled households.10 Close to half of 

all households in these groups were unbanked or 

underbanked compared to slightly more than 

one-quarter of all households. 

Relative to 2011, the estimated unbanked rates in 

2013 were generally similar for most groups.11 One 

exception is Hispanic households. While still relatively high, the unbanked rate for Hispanic households decreased to 17.9 percent in 2013 from 20.1 

percent in 2011. Improvements in economic conditions and changing demographics among Hispanic 

households over this time period explain nearly half 

of this reduction in the unbanked rate. In particular, 

relative to 2011, Hispanic households in 2013 experienced higher levels of employment, income and 

educational attainment. These characteristics are all 

associated with lower unbanked rates.

Banking Status and Geography

The share of unbanked and underbanked households 

varied substantially by geography. The regional variation in unbanked and underbanked rates in 2013 is 

consistent with previous survey results. The Southern 

region had the highest unbanked and underbanked 

rates (9.2 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively). In 

fact, while 38 percent of U.S. households live in the 

South, approximately 44 percent of unbanked and 

underbanked households lived there. The Midwest 

10 Working-age is considered to be between age 25 and 64. Consistent 

with our approach for other household characteristics such as employment status, we classify a household as one with disabilities based on the 

characteristics of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., “householder”). 

Please refer to Appendix I for a detailed discussion of how we classified 

households as disabled.

11 Reported differences between groups described in the text are statistically significant at the 10% level in a model that includes the entire set of 

household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A-1.

region had the lowest unbanked and underbanked 

rates (6.4 percent and 16.9 percent). Unbanked rates 

ranged from 1.9 percent in Alaska to 14.5 percent in 

Mississippi, while underbanked rates were lowest in 

Wisconsin (10.4 percent) and highest in Mississippi 

(32.8 percent). Relative to 2011, four states experienced statistically significant declines in unbanked 

rates: Alaska (from 5.2 percent to 1.9 percent), North 

Dakota (from 5.3 percent to 2.8 percent), Texas (from 

12.8 percent to 10.4 percent), and Michigan (from 7.7 

percent to 5.7 percent).

Household Banking Status Transitions

The 2013 survey asked whether households experienced changes in banking status, including the timeframe in which they became banked or unbanked. 

We use these questions to examine the dynamic 

nature of household banking status. 

Among unbanked households in 2013, consistent 

with previous survey results, slightly more than half 

(52.6 percent) had never been banked, which represented 4.1 percent of all U.S. households. However, 

for certain demographic groups, the share of 

unbanked households that had never had an account 

was disproportionately high. For example, 70.4 

percent of unbanked Hispanic households never had 

an account (see Appendix Table A-4). 

Slightly less than half (45.9 percent) of unbanked 

households in 2013 had a bank account in the past 

(previously banked households). Most of the previously banked households (79.5 percent) had been 

without an account for more than 12 months, while 

19.4 percent (or 8.9 percent of all unbanked households) became unbanked more recently.12

12 In comparison, in 2009, 28.1 percent of previously unbanked households 

were recently unbanked and in 2011, the comparable percentage was 20.3 

percent.

Appendix Table A-1a Banking Status By Household Characteristics, 2013

For all households, row percent

Characteristics

 Number of 

Households (1000s) 

Percent of 

Households Unbanked (Percent)

Banked: 

Underbanked 

(Percent)

Banked: Fully 

Banked (Percent)

Banked: 

Underbanked Status 

Unknown (Percent)

Metropolitan Status

Metropolitan area - Principal City 34,510 100 11.4 22.3 60.8 5.5

Metropolitan area - Balance 51,229 100 5.5 17.8 71.1 5.6

Not in Metropolitan area 19,325 100 8.5 21.0 66.1 4.5

Not Identified 18,686 100 6.4 20.8 68.1 4.8

NA= Not available because the sample size was too small to produce a precise estimate.

-= For this table cell, the estimated proportion would round to zero. The population proportion, however, is likely to be slightly greater than zero.

Figures do not always reconcile to totals because of rounding.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 3.3 Unbanked Rates By State, 2013

AL

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

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

DC

AK

HI

[1.9 to 4.5) 

[4.5 to 5.8) 

[5.8 to 7.4) 

[7.4 to 10.4) 

[10.4 to 14.5]

Figure 3.4 Underbanked Rates By State, 2013

AL

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

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

DC

AK

HI

[10.4 to 17.1)

[17.1 to 19.0)

[19 to 20) 

[20.0 to 23.5)

[23.5 to 32.8]
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 3.5 Previous Banking Status Of Unbanked Households 

in 2013

Focusing on whether households had experienced 

changes to their banking status over the past year, we 

classify households into one of four groups, as shown 

in Table 3.1.13 Almost 7 percent (6.9 percent) of 

households were “longer-term unbanked”, meaning 

they did not have a bank account in 2013 and also 

did not have a bank account within the last year.14

A small proportion of households, 0.7 percent, were 

“recently unbanked”, meaning they did not have a 

bank account at the time of the 2013 survey, but had 

an account at some point within the last year. Almost 

one in ten unbanked households were “recently 

unbanked”. 

Another 1.6 percent of households were “recently 

banked”, meaning they had an account in 2013, but 

at some point within the last 12 months no one in the 

household had an account. The remaining 90.9 

percent of households were “longer-term banked”, 

meaning they had an account in 2013, and had at 

least one bank account continuously for at least 12 

months. 

These results show that while the vast majority of 

households had been in their current banking status 

13 The estimates presented in Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and Appendix Table A-6b 

are for households for which we have information on recent bank status 

and incidence of life events. Specifically, the estimates were computed 

excluding 882 observations (representing roughly 2.8 million households) 

removed due to missing information on recent banking status, and 1,602 

additional observations (representing roughly 5.0 million households) 

removed due to missing data on the incidence of life events.

14 Households that were “longer-term unbanked” may never have had an 

account or they may have had an account more than a year ago.

for a year or more, a non-trivial number recently 

became banked or unbanked. 

Table 3.1 Household Banking Status Transitions

For all housholds with non-missing recent bank status and non-missing life 

events.

All

Longerterm 

Unbanked

Recently 

Unbanked

Recently 

Banked

Longerterm 

Banked

Number of House- holds (1000s) 115,872 7,973 807 1,800 105,292

Category as a 

share of all 

households 100 6.9 0.7 1.6 90.9

Banking Status Transitions and Household 

Characteristics 

It is useful to understand how the socioeconomic and 

demographic characteristics of households differed 

across the four banking status transition categories. 

As illustrated in Appendix Table A-6b (included on 

the following page), relative to the longer-term 

banked, households that recently transitioned into or 

out of a mainstream bank account had higher 

proportions of certain socioeconomic and demographic characteristics that are associated with being 

unbanked. 

For example, 48.0 percent of recently unbanked 

households and 32.4 percent of recently banked 

households had family income of less than $15,000. 

In contrast, 56.6 percent of longer-term unbanked 

households had income of less than $15,000, 

compared to only 11.6 percent of longer-term banked 

households. And 22.9 percent of recently unbanked 

households and 24.2 percent of recently banked 

households did not have a high-school diploma, 

compared with 38.2 percent of longer-term unbanked 

and 8.8 percent of longer-term banked households. 

Certain household characteristics were disproportionately represented among the recently unbanked. 

In particular, the unemployment rate among recently 

unbanked households was 25.4 percent, substantially 

higher than among the longer-term unbanked (12.0 

percent), recently banked (8.1 percent), and longerterm banked (3.6 percent). Similarly, 49.3 percent of 

recently-unbanked households were black, compared 

with 34.0 percent of longer-term unbanked, 25.0 

percent of recently banked, and 11.2 percent of 

longer-term banked. 

Had bank account

within last year 

 8.9 

Had bank account 

more than 1 yr ago 

 36.5 

Never had bank account 

 52.6 

Prev banked,

recency unknown

0.5 

Unknown 1.5 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Appendix Table A-6b Household Characteristics By Banking Transitions, 2013

For all households with non-missing recent bank status and non-missing life events, column percent

Characteristics All 

 Longer Term 

Unbanked 

 Recently 

Unbanked 

 Recently 

Banked 

 Longer Term Banked 

Number of Households (1000s) 115,872 7,973 807 1,800 105,292 

Percent of Households 100 100 100 100 100 

Household Type (Percent)

Married couple 48.2 21.1 23.6 33.8 50.7 

Unmarried female-headed family 12.7 30.8 33.9 23.8 11.0 

Unmarried male-headed family 5.2 9.0 8.9 9.1 4.8 

Female individual 17.7 16.6 17.2 13.1 17.9 

Male individual 16.1 22.3 16.4 20.1 15.6 

Other 0.1 0.3 - - 0.1 

Race/Ethnicity (Percent)

Black 13.2 34.0 49.3 25.0 11.2 

Hispanic 12.1 29.5 18.4 22.8 10.5 

Asian 4.7 1.3 0.1 5.1 5.0 

American Indian/Alaskan 1.2 2.6 3.2 2.7 1.0 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.3 0.2 - 0.2 0.3 

White non-Black non-Hispanic 68.5 32.4 29.0 44.2 72.0 

Other non-Black non-Hispanic - - - - - 

Spanish only language spoken (Percent)

Spanish is not the only language spoken 97.9 89.7 96.3 93.7 98.6 

Spanish is only language spoken 2.1 10.3 3.7 6.3 1.4 

Nativity (Percent)

U.S.-born 86.1 75.1 85.5 79.0 87.1 

Foreign born citizen 7.4 4.6 4.3 8.8 7.6 

Foreign born non citizen 6.5 20.3 10.2 12.2 5.3 

Age Group (Percent)

15 to 24 years 5.1 10.5 12.5 10.0 4.5 

25 to 34 years 16.6 26.1 33.9 20.5 15.7 

35 to 44 years 17.4 20.2 20.6 20.9 17.1 

45 to 54 years 19.9 19.4 17.7 21.9 19.9 

55 to 64 years 18.5 13.6 7.4 14.7 19.0 

65 years or more 22.6 10.1 8.1 12.0 23.8 

Disability Status (Percent)

Disabled 8.7 21.3 14.7 17.3 7.6 

Not Disabled 63.6 58.1 64.8 60.7 64.1 

Not Applicable 27.6 20.6 20.5 22.0 28.3 

Education (Percent)

No high school degree 11.2 38.2 22.9 24.2 8.8 

High school degree 27.1 38.1 36.3 34.2 26.0 

Some college 29.1 19.4 36.9 29.6 29.8 

College degree 32.7 4.3 4.0 12.1 35.4 

Employment Status (Percent)

Employed 61.4 43.1 43.8 60.0 63.0 

Unemployed 4.4 12.0 25.4 8.1 3.6 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Banking Status Transitions and Incidence of Life 

Events

Different types of major life events experienced by 

recently unbanked and recently banked households 

may have contributed to the changes in these households’ banking status. The 2013 survey asked new 

questions about major financial life events, which 

included significant income loss or gain, job loss or 

new job, significant increased or decreased expenses, 

and retirement. The 2013 survey also asked about 

major non-financial life events, including divorce or 

death, new marriage, birth, and moves. Households 

were asked if they had experienced any of these 

events, and recently unbanked and recently banked 

households were asked whether any events that they 

experienced contributed to them opening or closing 

their bank account. 

Relatively small proportions of households experienced a life event in the past year, but some households were more likely to experience such an event 

than others. Table 3.2 shows the incidence of life 

events across the four banking status transition categories. Households that recently became banked or 

unbanked reported a relatively high incidence of 

financial life events, especially job and significant 

income changes, suggesting that such households also 

faced greater volatility in their employment status. 

For example, 38.1 percent of recently unbanked 

households and 30.7 percent of recently banked 

households experienced a significant loss of income 

in the last 12 months, compared with 25.1 percent of 

longer-term unbanked and 13.0 percent of longer 

term banked households. 

The incidence of non-financial life events was generally small and relatively consistent across all four 

banking status transitions categories, with the exception of moves. Similar to the financial life events, 

moves or relocations were experienced by higher 

proportions of recently banked and recently 

unbanked households. Households that experienced 

moves were also likely to have experienced either 

Appendix Table A-6b Household Characteristics By Banking Transitions, 2013

For all households with non-missing recent bank status and non-missing life events, column percent

Characteristics All 

 Longer Term 

Unbanked 

 Recently 

Unbanked 

 Recently 

Banked 

 Longer Term Banked 

Not in labor force 34.2 45.0 30.9 31.9 33.4 

Family Income (Percent)

Less than $15,000 15.3 56.6 48.0 32.4 11.6 

Between $15,000 and $30,000 17.4 25.2 29.9 28.9 16.6 

Between $30,000 and $50,000 19.7 12.7 13.7 18.4 20.3 

Between $50,000 and $75,000 18.3 3.5 8.0 8.1 19.7 

At Least $75,000 29.3 2.0 0.4 12.2 31.9 

Homeownership (Percent)

Homeowner 65.0 20.8 19.2 39.6 69.1 

Non-homeowner 35.0 79.2 80.8 60.4 30.9 

Geographic Region (Percent)

Northeast 17.9 15.9 15.0 18.6 18.0 

Midwest 22.1 17.8 19.0 17.4 22.5 

South 37.8 44.7 43.4 45.0 37.1 

West 22.3 21.7 22.6 19.0 22.4 

Metropolitan Status (Percent)

Metropolitan area - Principal City 27.8 41.5 40.9 35.4 26.5 

Metropolitan area - Balance 41.3 28.9 31.6 33.8 42.4 

Not in Metropolitan area 15.8 17.1 14.5 16.0 15.7 

Not Identified 15.2 12.5 12.9 14.7 15.4 

NA= Not available because the sample size was too small to produce a precise estimate.

-= For this table cell, the estimated proportion would round to zero. The population proportion, however, is likely to be slightly greater than zero.

Figures do not always reconcile to totals because of rounding.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

changes in employment or significant changes in 

income.15

Table 3.2 Banking Status Transitions And Incidence 

Of Life Events

For all households with non-missing recent bank status and non-missing life 

events, column percent

Life Event All

Longerterm 

Unbanked

Recently 

Unbanked

Recently 

Banked

Longerterm 

Banked

Job or Significant 

income loss 17.1 29.5 44.9 37.2 15.6

Significant income 

loss 14.3 25.1 38.1 30.7 13.0

Significant increase in 

income 5.8 4.3 6.4 7.3 5.9

Job loss 10.2 18.7 35.4 23.0 9.2

New job 13.0 11.5 19.3 26.6 12.9

Retirement 2.8 1.6 2.0 2.9 2.9

Significant increase in 

Household expenses 15.7 16.1 25.3 21.8 15.5

Significant decrease in 

Household expenses 2.2 3.6 5.7 4.5 2.0

Divorce or death 2.3 2.4 2.1 3.2 2.3

New marriage 1.7 1.6 2.4 2.5 1.7

Birth or adoption 3.1 4.8 6.3 3.7 2.9

Move or relocation 10.0 14.2 20.4 18.0 9.4

The relatively high incidence of adverse financial 

shocks among recently unbanked households 

suggests that such events may lead to bank account 

closure. The results also suggest that positive changes 

might be associated with bank account opening, as a 

higher proportion of recently banked households 

experienced a new job (26.6 percent) compared with 

households in the other three banking status transitions categories.16

To learn more about the possible causal linkages 

between life events and bank account openings and 

closings, the survey asked households not only 

whether they experienced the specified events but 

also whether any life event they experienced contributed to a change in banking status. These results are 

presented in Table 3.3, and provide additional 

evidence about the extent to which specific events 

may affect household decisions to enter or exit the 

banking system.

15 Among households that experienced a move in the last 12 months, 

about 44 percent also gained or lost a job and 35 percent also experienced significant income gain or loss.

16 A multivariate model that included controls for household characteristics and the incidence of life events was estimated to identify the most 

important determinants of household exit and entry into the banking 

system. Among the various life events, job loss was the most important 

determinant of bank account exit, and a new job was the most important 

determinant of entry into the banking system.

The majority of households that were banked in the 

previous 12 months and that experienced a significant income loss or a job loss did not become 

unbanked.17 However, for households that did 

recently become unbanked, losing a job or experiencing a significant reduction in income appeared to be 

common triggers for bank account closure. Among 

households that recently became unbanked, 34.1 

percent experienced a significant income loss or a job 

loss that they said contributed to the household 

becoming unbanked.18 More than three-quarters of 

recently unbanked households that experienced a job 

or significant income loss said that those events 

contributed to them losing their accounts. 

The majority of households that were unbanked in 

the previous 12 months and experienced a new job 

did not open a bank account.19 However, among 

households that recently became banked, 26.6 percent 

reported a new job in the prior 12 months and 19.4 

percent reported that a new job contributed to their 

opening a bank account. In other words, more than 

70 percent of the recently banked households that 

reported a new job indicated that the change in 

employment contributed to their decision to open an 

account.

Table 3.3 Contribution Of Life Events To Bank 

Account Opening And Closing

For all households with non-missing recent bank status and non-missing life 

events, column percent

Life Event

Recently Unbanked Recently Banked

Event Occurred

Event Occurred 

and 

Contributed to 

Account 

Closing Event Occurred

Event Occurred 

and 

Contributed to 

Account 

Opening

Job or Significant income 

loss 44.9 34.1 37.2 12.9

Significant 

income loss 38.1 27.3 30.7 8.7

Significant 

increase in 

income 6.4 1.4 7.3 3.8

Job loss 35.4 27.6 23.0 8.9

New job 19.3 6.1 26.6 19.4

Retirement 2.0 0.3 2.9 1.5

17 Among households that were banked and experienced an income or 

job loss within the previous year, less than 5 percent had become 

unbanked by the time of the survey.

18 There was substantial overlap between the households that experienced job loss and those that experienced significant income loss. For 

example, among recently unbanked households that experienced a significant income loss, 75 percent also reported a job loss. 

19 Among households that were unbanked and got a new job in the previous year, less than 5 percent had become banked by the time of the 

survey.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Table 3.3 Contribution Of Life Events To Bank 

Account Opening And Closing

For all households with non-missing recent bank status and non-missing life 

events, column percent

Life Event

Recently Unbanked Recently Banked

Event Occurred

Event Occurred 

and 

Contributed to 

Account 

Closing Event Occurred

Event Occurred 

and 

Contributed to 

Account 

Opening

Significant 

increase in 

Household 

expenses 25.3 15.0 21.8 9.1

Significant 

decrease in 

Household 

expenses 5.7 2.5 4.5 1.0

Divorce or 

death 2.1 1.0 3.2 1.5

New marriage 2.4 0.5 2.5 1.5

Birth or 

adoption 6.3 2.2 3.7 1.2

Move or 

relocation 20.4 8.2 18.0 8.4

Reasons for Being Unbanked 

As in previous years, all unbanked households were 

asked why they do not have a bank account although 

this question was revised in the 2013 survey, limiting 

comparability across years. In addition to a change in 

how the question was presented in the 2013 survey,20

the list of reasons was changed; notably, the reason 

“do not need or want an account” was deleted to try 

to better understand why households feel they do not 

need an account. This reason was a popular response 

in both the 2011 and 2009 surveys.21

In 2013, the most common reason, selected by more 

than half of all unbanked households (57.5 percent), 

was that they did not feel they had enough money to 

keep in an account or to meet a minimum balance 

requirement. More than one in three unbanked 

households (35.6 percent) said that lack of money 

20 In the 2013 survey, respondents were able to indicate multiple reasons 

for why no one in the household had a bank account and then were asked 

to choose a single main reason from the indicated list. In 2011, respondents were asked only about the single main reason why no one in the 

household had a bank account. And in 2009, respondents were able to 

indicate all applicable reasons under three sub-categories (customer 

service, financial reasons, other reasons) and then were asked to select 

the main reason from the indicated list. As a result, the results from 2013 

are not directly comparable to results from the previous surveys. 

21 In the 2011 survey, this was the second most frequently selected 

reason (selected by 21.0 percent of all unbanked households). In the 2009 

survey, this was the fourth most commonly selected reason for never 

banked households (selected by 12.4 percent of never banked households) and the second most commonly selected reason for previously 

banked households (selected by 25.8 percent of previously banked 

households).

was the main reason behind their decision to be 

unbanked. In 2011 and 2009, lack of money was also 

the most frequently selected reason for being 

unbanked.

The new life events questions provide additional 

context for households that reported not having 

enough money to have an account. About half (49.0 

percent) of unbanked households that experienced a 

significant loss of income said their main reason for 

being unbanked was not having enough money. 

Among households with significant income loss that 

they said contributed to closing their account, 60.9 

percent selected this as their main reason for being 

unbanked.

The second most common reason households cited 

for not having a bank account was a lack of trust in 

or dislike of dealing with banks: 34.2 percent reported 

this as one reason for being unbanked and 14.9 

percent reported it as the main reason.

The third most common reason households identified for being unbanked was high or unpredictable 

account fees, cited by 30.8 percent of unbanked 

households as one reason and by 13.4 percent of 

unbanked households as the main reason. 

Previously banked households were more likely (37.6 

percent) to cite high or unpredictable account fees as 

a reason why they did not have an account than were 

households that never had an account (25.4 percent). 

Also, almost one in five (17.7 percent) previously 

banked households said that fees were the main 

reason why they were unbanked, compared to one in 

ten (9.8 percent) households that never had an 

account. Notably this is the largest difference between 

previously banked and never banked households 

regarding their reasons for being unbanked. 

The new life events questions also lend additional 

context here: among households that became 

unbanked in the last year and had a significant loss of 

income that contributed to the bank account closure, 

almost one in five (18.0 percent) said that their main 

reason for being unbanked was that account fees were 

too high or unpredictable.

In 2013, households were asked, for the first time, 

whether they were unbanked because not having an 

account gave them more privacy for their personal 

finances. More than one in four unbanked households (26.4 percent) reported that this was one of the 

reasons why they choose not to have an account, but 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 3.6 Reasons Households Were Unbanked 

Figure 3.7 Reasons Previously Banked Households Were Unbanked

Other

Banks do not oer needed products or services

Inconvenient hours or locations

Privacy

ID, credit, or banking history problems

Account fees are too high or unpredictable

Don’t like dealing with or don’t trust banks

Do not have enough money

Cited as a reason

Main reason

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

7.4

12.5

1.2

10.5

2.6

6.8

3.7

26.4

6.8

16.8

13.4

30.8

14.9

34.2

35.6

57.5

Other

Banks do not oer needed products or services

Inconvenient hours or locations

Privacy

ID, credit, or banking history problems

Don’t like dealing with or don’t trust banks

Account fees are too high or unpredictable

Do not have enough money

Cited as a reason

Main reason

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

9.5

16.0

1.0

11.7

3.1

8.1

3.9

28.9

6.8

16.3

13.9

36.3

17.7

37.6

36.3

60.5
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

it was a main reason for being unbanked for just 3.7 

percent of unbanked households. 

A relatively small proportion of households (6.8 

percent) were unbanked mainly because they could 

not open an account due to ID, credit or banking 

history problems. However, as in previous surveys, 

this reason is more important among unbanked 

Hispanic households, nearly one quarter (23.0 

percent) of which said these problems were a reason 

why they were unbanked. About one in ten (10.7 

percent) unbanked Hispanic households reported this 

to be the main reason they did not have an account. 

Future Banking Plans of Unbanked Households 

Unbanked households’ intentions to join, or rejoin, 

the banking system provide additional insights into 

the banking status transitions discussed earlier in this 

section. The 2013 survey, like the previous surveys, 

asked unbanked households whether they intended to 

open a bank account in the future. Unlike the 2011 

survey, which did not specify a time horizon for 

account opening, the 2013 survey asked households 

how likely they were to open an account within the 

next 12 months. Most unbanked households (58.5 

percent) reported that they were “not too likely” or 

“not likely at all” (not likely) to do so. Only about 

one-third (35.7 percent) of unbanked households 

reported that they were “very likely” or “somewhat 

likely” (likely) to open an account in the next 12 

months, including 13.8 percent that reported being 

“very likely” to do so.22

Higher proportions of households that previously 

had an account reported being likely to open one in 

the next 12 months compared with households that 

had never been banked. Almost half (48.6 percent) of 

unbanked households that previously had an account 

reported being likely to open another in the next 12 

months compared with only about one-quarter (25.2 

percent) of households that had never been banked.

Recency of a household’s banking relationship also 

appeared to be correlated with the household’s 

reported likelihood of rejoining the banking system. 

22 In the 2011 survey, 60.7 percent of unbanked households reported not 

being likely to open an account in the future and 33.9 percent reported 

being likely to do so.

Figure 3.8 Reasons Never Banked Households Were Unbanked

Other

Banks do not oer needed products or services

Inconvenient hours or locations

Privacy

ID, credit, or banking history problems

Account fees are too high or unpredictable

Don’t like dealing with or don’t trust banks

Do not have enough money

Cited as a reason

Main reason

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

5.8

9.7

1.5

9.5

2.3

5.8

3.6

24.7

7.0

17.3

9.8

25.4

16.1

33.1

35.7

55.9
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Almost three out of four (74.8 percent) unbanked 

households that recently had a bank account reported 

being likely to open another in the next 12 months, 

compared with 42.7 percent of unbanked households 

that had an account more than a year ago. These 

results suggest that many consumers who have had 

experience, especially recent experience, with a bank 

account find value in having one. 

In addition, relatively large proportions of households headed by younger householders reported 

being likely to open an account in the next 12 

months. See Appendix Table A-10 for households’ 

reported likelihood of opening an account in the next 

12 months by household characteristics. 

Reasons that Recently Banked Households Opened 

Accounts

The 2009 and 2011 surveys provided insights into the 

reasons households were likely to open an account in 

the future. In both years, meeting transaction needs, 

security, and saving were consistently the most 

frequently reported reasons.23 For example, in 2011 

unbanked households that reported being likely to 

open an account in the future reported that their 

main reason for doing so were: “to be able to write 

checks and pay bills” (27.4 percent), “to put money in 

a safe place” (27.4 percent) and “to save money for 

the future” (23.8 percent). A smaller share of households (7.9 percent) selected “to take advantage of 

direct deposit of paychecks” as the main reason for 

wanting to open an account in the future. This is not 

surprising given that households are unlikely to be 

able to forecast future needs for direct deposit, which 

are dependent on current and future employers’ 

payroll methods.

The 2013 survey did not ask unbanked households 

that reported being likely to open an account in the 

future why they wanted to do so. Instead, the survey 

asked recently banked households about the main 

reason why they had opened an account in the past 

12 months. A majority of these recently banked 

households cited reasons related to meeting transaction needs: about one third (34.2 percent) opened an 

account “to receive direct deposits” and one quarter 

(25.0 percent) “to pay for everyday items, pay bills, 

and write checks”. One in five (19.1 percent) recently 

23 In 2011, the survey asked households that reported being very likely 

and somewhat likely to open an account in the future about the reasons 

why they would do so. In 2009 the survey only asked about the reasons for 

opening an account to households that reported being very likely to do so 

in the future. Despite this difference in households that were asked the 

question, the most frequent reasons selected were similar in both years.

banked households reported opening an account “to 

put money in a safe place” and roughly 7 percent (7.1 

percent) selected savings as their main reason for 

opening an account. 

Results from these surveys can inform efforts to 

increase the number of banked households. The 2013 

results indicate that immediate, practical triggers, 

such as the need to receive direct deposits, can be 

important drivers in the decision to join the banking 

system. The 2011 and 2009 survey results show that 

longer-term goals such as savings are also important 

reasons that unbanked households want to open 

accounts in the future.

The fact that the largest share of recently banked 

households reported opening an account to receive 

direct deposits is consistent with the findings about 

the contribution of new jobs to account opening for 

recently banked households, discussed in the section 

on banking status transitions. A new job may offer 

new opportunities for the direct deposit of paychecks. 

These findings suggest that promoting and encouraging direct deposit of paychecks could contribute to 

bringing unbanked consumers into the banking 

system. In addition, being mindful about the transaction, security and savings motivations that many 

unbanked households associate with bank accounts 

could help tailor products to meet these specific 

needs.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

4. Checking and Savings Account Ownership, and Automatic Transfers

Checking and Savings Account Ownership

Consistent with 2011, checking account ownership in 

2013 was considerably more widespread than ownership of savings accounts. The vast majority of all U.S. 

households (88.5 percent), including almost all 

banked households (96.1 percent), owned a checking 

account. Less than 70 percent (68.8 percent) of all 

households owned a savings account. Roughly 

two-thirds (66.8 percent) of all households owned 

both a checking and a savings account (see Appendix 

Table B-1). 

In total, 29.5 percent of U.S. households (including 

the 7.7 percent of U.S. households that were 

unbanked) did not have a savings account, which 

suggests that opportunities continue to exist for 

banks to develop and implement innovative 

programs to facilitate household savings. Similar to 

the unbanked population overall, higher proportions 

of households that did not have savings accounts 

were black or Hispanic, foreign-born and unemployed compared with households with a savings 

account. Households without savings accounts were 

also more likely to have lower incomes and lower 

levels of education than households that owned 

savings accounts. 

Among banked households, the underbanked were 

less likely than the fully banked to have a savings 

account. Slightly less than one-third (31.7 percent) of 

underbanked households did not have savings 

accounts compared with about one-fifth (21.2 

percent) of fully banked households. 

Recently banked households were less likely than 

those that had been banked longer term to have 

savings accounts. Almost half of recently banked 

households (47.2 percent) did not have a savings 

account, compared to less than one quarter (23.2 

percent) of longer-term banked households. 

Direct Deposits and Automatic Transfers into Bank 

Accounts

For the first time, the 2013 survey asked all banked 

households whether they had money directly deposited or automatically transferred into a bank account, 

including automatic transfers between accounts. The 

vast majority (80.3 percent) of banked households 

had money directly deposited into a bank account or 

automatically transferred funds between accounts. As 

noted previously, receiving direct deposits was the 

most frequent main reason for opening an account, 

given by about one-third of recently banked households. However, recently banked households were 

less likely to have direct deposit (66.4 percent) 

compared to households that have had an account for 

longer (82.1 percent).

Use of direct deposits or automatic transfers 

increased with income. Among households with 

incomes of less than $15,000, 71.2 percent used direct 

deposits or automatic transfers compared to 87.6 

percent of households with incomes of at least 

$75,000. These differences could be partly due to 

differences in availability of direct deposit in different 

jobs.

Banked foreign born households (67.0 percent), 

particularly non-citizens (58.7 percent), were also 

considerably less likely than U.S.-born households 

(82.3 percent) to have direct deposits or automatic 

transfers to their bank account. 

Among banked households that had direct deposits 

or automatic transfers, the vast majority (81.4 

percent) deposited or transferred the funds into a 

checking account only. Fewer than one in five households (17.3 percent) that had automatic deposits or 

transfers deposited or transferred those funds into a 

savings account, including 13.2 percent who had 

money transferred into both a savings and a checking 

account. 

Among households with savings accounts that had 

direct deposit or automatic transfers, 22.0 percent 

deposited or transferred funds into a savings account.

Figure 4.1 Direct Deposit And Automatic Transfer Bank 

Account Types For Households With Direct Deposit Or 

Automatic Transfers

Account Type Unknown 

 1.3 

Savings Only 

 4.1 

Checking and Savings 

 13.2 

Checking Only 

 81.4 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

5. Prepaid Debit Cards

General purpose reloadable prepaid debit cards are a 

rapidly growing payment instrument that has traditionally been marketed with a focus on underserved 

households. Many, although not all, such cards store 

funds in accounts eligible for deposit insurance, and 

some of these cards are issued directly by banks to 

consumers. According to the 2013 Federal Reserve 

Payments Study, prepaid card payment transactions 

increased 15.8 percent annually between 2009 and 

2012, reaching 9.2 billion transactions in 2012.1 Similar to a checking account, these cards can be used to 

pay bills, withdraw cash at ATMs, make purchases, 

deposit checks, and receive direct deposits. 

In 2013, 12.0 percent of all households had ever used 

prepaid cards. Their use was more common among 

1 Federal Reserve Board of Governors. 2014. The 2013 Federal Reserve 

Payment Study, Recent and Long-Term Trends in the United States: 2000-

2012, July 2014. Available at http://www.frbservices.org/files/communications/pdf/general/2013_fed_res_paymt_study_detailed_rpt.pdf.

unbanked and underbanked households. More than a 

quarter (27.1 percent) of unbanked households had 

ever used prepaid cards, compared with 19.6 percent 

of underbanked households and 8.8 percent of fully 

banked households. 

Consistent with the growth in prepaid card transactions noted in the Federal Reserve Payments Study, 

the 12.0 percent of all households in 2013 that had 

ever used a prepaid card was higher than the 10.1 

percent in 2011 and 9.9 percent in 2009.2 Prepaid 

card use among unbanked households, in particular, 

increased substantially in this time: the share of 

unbanked households that had ever used a prepaid 

card increased to 27.1 percent in 2013 from 17.8 

percent in 2011 and 12.2 percent in 2009. 

2 The proportion of households with unknown prepaid card use 

increased to 5.7 percent in 2013 from 2.9 percent in 2011 and 2.2 percent 

in 2009. 

Figure 5.1 Households That Had Ever Used Prepaid Cards By Banking Status And Year

All Unbanked Fully Banked

(2011 Denition)

 2011

 2013

0

10

20

30

40

10.1

12.0

17.8

27.1

17.4

19.7

7.3

8.9

Underbanked

(2011 Denition)

Note: In order to compare prepaid card use in 2011 and 2013, the denition of underbanked used in this graph is the 2011 denition of underbanked (which excludes auto 

title loans). Using the 2011 denition changes very slightly the prepaid card use percentages for both underbanked and fully banked households compared with using the 

2013 denition. Figure 5.2 in this section, which focuses on prepaid card use in 2013, uses the 2013 denition of underbanked. 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

In the 2013 survey, we added new questions on 

households’ use of prepaid cards, including use in the 

last 12 months and in the last 30 days. Nearly eight 

percent (7.9) of all households used prepaid cards in 

the last 12 months, and 3.9 percent had used them in 

the last 30 days. 

The share of households that used prepaid cards in 

the prior twelve months and in the past 30 days 

varied substantially by banking status, as seen in 

Figure 5.2. Substantially higher shares of unbanked 

households had used prepaid cards in the last 12 

months (22.3 percent) and in the last 30 days (16.8 

percent) than the shares of either underbanked or 

fully banked households. 

Unbanked and underbanked households made up the 

majority of prepaid card users. Among households 

that used prepaid cards in the last 12 months, more 

than half (55.0 percent) were unbanked or underbanked. Among households that used prepaid cards 

in the last 30 days, two-thirds (66.6 percent) were 

unbanked or underbanked.

For the remainder of this section, we focus on 

prepaid card use by households in the past 12 months 

which we refer to as prepaid card use.

Figure 5.3 Banking Status of Households That Used Prepaid 

Cards In The Last 12 Months

Unbanked 

 21.8 

Underbanked 

 33.2 

Fully

Banked 

 44.6 

Banked,

Underbanked

Status

Unknown 

 0.5 

Figure 5.2 Recency Of Prepaid Card Use By Banking Status, 2013

All Unbanked Underbanked Fully Banked

Ever Used

Used in Last 12 Months

Used in Last 30 Days

0

10

20

30

40

12.0

7.9

3.9

27.1

22.3

16.8

19.6

13.1

6.6

8.8

5.3

1.9
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 5.4 Banking Status Of Households That Used Prepaid 

Cards In The Last 30 Days

Characteristics of Households That Used Prepaid 

Cards

Use of prepaid cards differed across households with 

different characteristics.3 Younger households were 

more likely to use prepaid cards than older households. For example, 12.7 percent of households age 

24 or younger had used prepaid cards compared with 

3.0 percent of households age 65 or older. Other 

household types that were more likely to use prepaid 

cards include unmarried female-headed households 

(13.1 percent), the unemployed (14.8 percent), and 

non-home owners (11.6 percent). 

Table 5.1 Prepaid Debit Card Use by Selected 

Household Characteristics, 2013

For all households, row percent

Household Characteristics

Used prepaid card in the last 12 months

All 7.9

Household Type

Married couple 7.1

Unmarried female-headed family 13.1

Unmarried male-headed family 10.2

Female individual 6.3

Male individual 7.2

Other 7.2

Race/Ethnicity

Black 11.5

Hispanic 7.8

Asian 4.5

American Indian/Alaskan 14.7

3 All reported differences are statistically significant in a multivariate 

regression model in which banking status was also included as an explanatory variable. 

Table 5.1 Prepaid Debit Card Use by Selected 

Household Characteristics, 2013

For all households, row percent

Household Characteristics

Used prepaid card in the last 12 months

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 9.8

White non-Black non-Hispanic 7.3

Other non-Black non-Hispanic 0.0

Nativity

U.S.-born 8.3

Foreign born citizen 4.0

Foreign born non citizen 6.8

Age Group

15 to 24 years 12.7

25 to 34 years 10.9

35 to 44 years 10.3

45 to 54 years 9.1

55 to 64 years 6.4

65 years or more 3.0

Disability Status

Disabled 12.4

Not Disabled 8.7

Not Applicable 4.7

Education

No high school degree 8.9

High school degree 8.1

Some college 8.8

College degree 6.7

Employment Status

Employed 8.4

Unemployed 14.8

Not in labor force 6.2

Family Income

Less than $15,000 11.4

Between $15,000 and $30,000 8.3

Between $30,000 and $50,000 8.3

Between $50,000 and $75,000 6.4

At Least $75,000 6.5

Homeownership

Homeowner 5.9

Non-homeowner 11.6

Geographic Region

Northeast 6.6

Midwest 8.9

South 8.4

West 7.1

Unbanked 

 33.2 

Underbanked 

 33.4 

Fully

Banked 

 33.0 

Banked,

Underbanked

Status

Unknown 

 0.4 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 5.5 Share Of All Households That Used Prepaid Cards In The Last 12 Months

Prepaid card use varied somewhat among the four 

regions of the U.S., with a high of 8.9 percent of all 

households in the Midwest and a low of 6.6 percent 

in the Northeast. Prepaid card use also varied considerably by state. Hawaii had the lowest share of households (3.5 percent) that had used prepaid cards. The 

two states with the highest share of households that 

had used prepaid card were Mississippi (14.9 percent) 

and Oklahoma (12.9 percent).

Prepaid Card Use among Unbanked Households 

As previously noted, unbanked households were 

significantly more likely than banked households – 

both underbanked and fully banked -- to have used 

prepaid cards. Even among unbanked households, 

there were some groups who were more likely to have 

used prepaid cards, such as households with some 

college (30.0 percent) and those with incomes 

between $30,000 and $50,000 per year (28.3 percent). 

In addition, previously banked households (33.0 

percent) were almost two and a half times more likely 

than households that had never been banked (13.4 

percent) to have used prepaid cards. 

The Midwest had the highest rate of prepaid card use 

among unbanked households (26.7 percent) and the 

West had the lowest rate (17.9 percent). There was 

greater variation in prepaid card usage among 

unbanked households than among all households 

across different states. In three states, half or more of 

the unbanked households had used prepaid cards: 

Oregon (56.7 percent), Iowa (53.4 percent) and 

Minnesota (50.0 percent). And in three states, less 

than one in ten unbanked households had used 

prepaid cards: Arizona (9.4 percent), North Dakota 

(5.2 percent) and Montana (3.6 percent). 

Reasons for Using Prepaid Cards 

The vast majority of unbanked households that used 

prepaid cards appeared to use them to meet their 

financial transaction needs: the two overwhelmingly 

reported main reasons for using prepaid cards, cited 

by almost 8 in 10 (79.4 percent) of these households, 

were “to pay for every day purchases or bills” and “to 

receive payments”. The third most frequently 

reported main reason for using a prepaid card was 

“to put money in a safe place”, which was cited by 6.6 

percent of unbanked households that used prepaid 

cards.

AL

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

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

DC

AK

HI

[3.5 to 6.5) 

[6.5 to 7.6) 

[7.6 to 8.5) 

[8.5 to 9.6) 

[9.6 to 14.9]
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Table 5.2 Prepaid Debit Card Use by Selected 

Household Characteristics, 2013

For all unbanked households, row percent

Household Characteristics

Used prepaid cards in the last 12 months

All 22.3

Household Type

Married couple 20.6

Unmarried female-headed family 28.4

Unmarried male-headed family 18.7

Female individual 20.2

Male individual 18.7

Other 13.4

Race/Ethnicity

Black 25.0

Hispanic 12.2

Asian 2.1

American Indian/Alaskan 28.4

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 33.2

White non-Black non-Hispanic 28.2

Other non-Black non-Hispanic 0.0

Nativity

U.S.-born 26.6

Foreign born citizen 6.0

Foreign born non citizen 9.1

Age Group

15 to 24 years 21.1

25 to 34 years 25.7

35 to 44 years 24.9

45 to 54 years 25.0

55 to 64 years 18.7

65 years or more 8.9

Disability Status

Disabled 27.9

Not Disabled 22.8

Not applicable 15.0

Education

No high school degree 18.4

High school degree 22.4

Some college 30.0

College degree 17.3

Employment Status

Employed 23.2

Unemployed 27.5

Not in labor force 19.8

Family Income

Less than $15,000 20.9

Table 5.2 Prepaid Debit Card Use by Selected 

Household Characteristics, 2013

For all unbanked households, row percent

Household Characteristics

Used prepaid cards in the last 12 months

Between $15,000 and $30,000 23.3

Between $30,000 and $50,000 28.3

Between $50,000 and $75,000 19.8

At Least $75,000 13.7

Homeownership

Homeowner 16.1

Non-homeowner 24.0

Geographic Region

Northeast 19.3

Midwest 26.7

South 23.6

West 17.9

While a majority (53.3 percent) of underbanked 

households that used prepaid cards also appeared to 

use them mainly to conduct financial transactions, 

there was more variation in the main reason that 

these households used prepaid cards. For example 

12.3 percent reported using prepaid cards to send or 

give money. 

Less than 2 in 5 (37.6 percent) fully banked households that used prepaid cards reported that the main 

reason they used prepaid cards was “to pay for every 

day purchases or bills” or “to receive payments”, 

although that share was still high for households that 

had existing relationships with mainstream financial 

institutions. Almost one-third of fully banked households (31.5 percent) that use prepaid cards reported 

some other reason than the ones listed and about one 

in five of these households (20.7 percent) used 

prepaid cards to send or give money.

Use of Prepaid Cards and Alternative Financial 

Services

Households that used prepaid cards, whether banked 

or unbanked, were also more likely to have used an 

Alternative Financial Service (AFS) in the last 12 

months compared to households that did not use 

prepaid cards. 

Among unbanked households, those that used 

prepaid cards in the last 12 months were more likely 

(76.1 percent) to have also used a transaction AFS 

(check cashing, money orders and remittances) from 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 5.6 Share Of Unbanked Households That Used Prepaid Cards In The Last 12 Months

AL

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

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

DC

AK

HI

[3.6 to 16.2)

[16.2 to 21.9)

[21.9 to 25.3)

[25.3 to 31.0)

[31.0 to 56.7]

Figure 5.7 Main Reason Unbanked Households Used Prepaid Cards In The Last 12 Months

Unknown

Other reason

To save money for the future

To send or give money

To control spending

To put money in a safe place

To receive payments

To pay for everyday purchases or pay bills

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.5

5.2

1.2

1.4

5.8

6.6

31.8

47.6
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 5.8 Main Reason Underbanked Households Used Prepaid Cards In The Last 12 Months

Figure 5.9 Main Reason Fully Banked Households Used Prepaid Cards In The Last 12 Months

Unknown

Other reason

To save money for the future

To put money in a safe place

To control spending

To send or give money

To receive payments

To pay for everyday purchases or pay bills

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.1

17.9

2.0

5.0

8.3

12.3

14.3

39.0

Unknown

Other reason

To save money for the future

To put money in a safe place

To control spending

To receive payments

To send or give money

To pay for everyday purchases or pay bills

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.8

31.5

0.8

3.2

5.4

8.7

20.7

28.9
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

a non-bank in the last 12 months compared to households that did not use prepaid cards in the last 12 

months (65.5 percent). Similarly, among unbanked 

households, almost one third (32.1 percent) of those 

that used prepaid cards in the last 12 months also 

used a credit AFS product in the last 12 months 

compared to 20.7 percent of those that had not used 

prepaid cards in the last 12 months.

The high rate of transaction AFS use among 

unbanked households that used prepaid cards 

suggests that these households had a variety of different financial transaction needs that they met using a 

combination of prepaid cards and AFS.

Sources of Prepaid Cards

Prepaid cards issued by banks could offer opportunities for prepaid card users to develop or sustain relationships with banks. In 2013, however, most 

households that used prepaid cards obtained those 

cards from entities other than banks. Nearly a third 

(31.5 percent) of households that used prepaid cards 

obtained them from large retail or department stores. 

Another 18.7 percent obtain them from grocery, 

liquor, convenience or drug stores. An additional 

17.8 percent received their prepaid cards from someone else, and only 10.7 percent obtained their prepaid 

cards from a bank branch. About four percent 

obtained them on-line. 

Not surprisingly, the share of households that 

obtained their prepaid cards from a bank branch 

differed by banking status. Among households that 

used prepaid cards, 15.4 percent of fully banked 

households obtain their prepaid cards from a bank 

branch compared with 8.7 percent of underbanked 

households and 4.2 percent of unbanked households.

Among unbanked households that used prepaid 

cards, regardless of whether the household never had 

a bank account or held an account in the past year, 

approximately 4 to 5 percent obtained their prepaid 

cards from a bank branch. And those unbanked 

households that reported that they were very likely to 

open a bank account in the near future were no more 

likely to obtain a prepaid card from a bank than those 

that reported being very unlikely to open a bank 

account in the near future. 

Overall, regardless of banking status, retail or department stores were the most frequent places from 

which households acquired the card: 34.2 percent of 

unbanked, 36.7 percent of underbanked, and 26.5 

percent of fully banked households that used prepaid 

cards obtained them from these locations.

Figure 5.10 AFS Use in Last 12 Months By Banking Status and Prepaid Card Use in Last 12 Months 

Unbanked Used Prepaid Unbanked Did Not Use Prepaid Banked Used Prepaid Banked Did Not Use Prepaid

Transaction AFS

Credit AFS

0

20

40

60

80 76.1

32.1

65.5 

20.7 

36.9 

16.1

30.1

12.2 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

For unbanked and underbanked households that 

used prepaid cards, the second most common location for acquiring a prepaid card were grocery, liquor 

and convenience stores, which were used by 17.7 

percent of unbanked and 20.2 percent of underbanked households. For fully banked households 

that used prepaid cards, the second most common 

source of the card was “provided by someone else” 

(22.1 percent).

Households that used prepaid cards differed by banking status in their propensity to obtain cards from 

stand-alone non-bank financial services stores: 

unbanked households were the most likely (9.6 

percent), underbanked households were less likely 

(4.5 percent) and fully banked households were the 

least likely (1.1 percent) to obtain their cards from 

stand-alone non-bank financial services stores.

Reloading Prepaid Cards

Reloading of a prepaid card may indicate that the 

household is a more active user of prepaid cards than 

households that did not reload their cards. Unbanked 

households that used prepaid cards were more likely 

(57.8 percent) to have reloaded their cards at least 

once in the last 12 months compared to underbanked 

(42.9 percent) or fully banked (23.4 percent) households that used prepaid cards. 

Regardless of banking status, the most frequently 

used channel for reloading prepaid cards was retail 

clerk. Among households that reloaded their prepaid 

cards in the last 12 months, more than half (58.1 

percent) of unbanked households, more than half 

(58.4 percent) of underbanked households and 

almost 1 in 3 (31.5 percent) fully banked households 

reloaded their cards using retail clerks. 

The second most frequently used channel for reloading prepaid cards differed for fully banked and 

underbanked households compared with unbanked 

households. Among fully banked and underbanked 

households, the second most frequently used channel 

was bank tellers, used by 26.6 percent of fully banked 

households and 15.0 percent of underbanked households that reloaded their prepaid cards. Only 3.3 

Figure 5.11 Sources of Prepaid Cards Of Unbanked Households

Unknown

Over the telephone

A bank branch

Internet/Online

Stand alone non−bank nancial services store

Provided by someone else

Grocery, liquor, convenience, or drug store

Large retail or department store

0 10 20 30 40

13.9

1.8

4.2

5.3

9.6

13.3

17.7

34.2
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 5.12 Sources Of Prepaid Cards Of Underbanked Households

Figure 5.13 Sources Of Prepaid Cards Of Fully Banked Households

Unknown

Over the telephone

Stand alone non−bank nancial services store

Internet/Online

A bank branch

Provided by someone else

Grocery, liquor, convenience, or drug store

Large retail or department store

0 10 20 30 40

9.2

0.4

4.5

5.4

8.7

15.0

20.2

36.7

Unknown

Over the telephone

Stand alone non−bank nancial services store

Internet/Online

A bank branch

Grocery, liquor, convenience, or drug store

Provided by someone else

Large retail or department store

0 10 20 30 40

13.5

0.3

1.1

2.9

15.4

18.1

22.1

26.5
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

percent of unbanked households that reloaded their 

prepaid cards used tellers to do so. 

For unbanked households that reloaded their prepaid 

cards, the second most frequently used channel was 

direct deposit, used by 27.7 percent of these households. Direct deposit was used by 12.9 percent of 

underbanked households and 12.5 percent of fully 

banked households that had reloaded their prepaid 

cards.

Banking History and Future Banking Plans of 

Unbanked Households that Used Prepaid Cards

Unbanked households that used prepaid cards were 

more likely to have once had a bank account and to 

want a bank account in the future compared with 

unbanked households that had not used prepaid 

cards. And previously banked households were more 

likely to have used prepaid cards than never banked 

households. 

Among all unbanked households that used prepaid 

cards, 68.0 percent once had a bank account. In 

comparison, 38.5 percent of unbanked households 

that had not used prepaid cards were previously 

banked. 

Almost half (46.5 percent) of unbanked households 

that used prepaid cards reported being “very likely” 

or “somewhat likely” to open a bank account in the 

future, compared with 32.6 percent of unbanked 

households that had not used prepaid cards.

Reasons that Unbanked Households that Used 

Prepaid Cards Did Not Have an Account

The relative ranking of main reasons and reasons for 

not having an account reported by unbanked households that used prepaid cards were very similar to the 

reasons reported by unbanked households that did 

not use prepaid cards.

Almost 3 in 5 unbanked households, regardless of 

whether they used prepaid cards, reported not having 

enough money as one reason that they did not have a 

bank account: 59.5 percent of unbanked households 

that used prepaid cards and 59.7 percent of unbanked 

households that did not use prepaid cards selected 

this reason. And 32.0 percent of unbanked houseFigure 5.14 Share of Prepaid Card Users That Reloaded Their Cards in the Last 12 Months By Banking Status

Unbanked Underbanked Fully Banked

Unknown

Card Was Not Reloaded

Card Was Reloaded

0

20

40

60

80

100

57.8 42.9 23.4

41.9 56.1 75.8

0.3 1.0 0.8
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

holds that used prepaid cards reported this to be the 

main reason they did not have an account, compared 

with 38.9 percent of unbanked households that did 

not use prepaid cards.

The second most frequently reported reason, cited by 

43.6 percent of unbanked households that used 

prepaid cards and by 32.8 percent of unbanked 

households that did not use prepaid cards, was not 

liking to deal with or not trusting banks. This was 

also the second most frequently cited main reason, 

reported by 18.0 percent of unbanked households 

that used prepaid cards and 14.7 percent of unbanked 

households that did not use prepaid cards.

Account fees being too high or unpredictable was 

reported by 40.1 percent of unbanked households 

that used prepaid cards as one reason they did not 

have an account, compared with 29.3 percent of 

unbanked households that did not use prepaid cards 

that cited this reason. This was also the third most 

frequently cited main reason, reported by 16.9 

percent of unbanked households that used prepaid 

cards and 12.7 percent of unbanked households that 

did not use prepaid cards.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

6. Alternative Financial Services

In the 2013 survey, questions on household use of 

AFS were revised, new questions were added, and 

some questions were dropped. Some of the new questions asked about household use of auto title loans, a 

form of short-term credit secured by a vehicle owned 

by the borrower and typically obtained by lower-income households. This change was implemented in 

response to feedback from external stakeholders and 

an understanding that auto title loans were used as 

frequently as other AFS credit products that had been 

included in previous surveys. In addition, new questions asked households that used transaction AFS 

where they obtained that AFS (such as the supermarket or a standalone AFS provider). Households were 

not asked why they used AFS providers instead of 

banks because this question was asked in 2009 and 

2011, and the answers were consistent across the two 

years. In addition, households were no longer asked 

how many times they used transaction AFS in the last 

30 days. 

In 2013, 39.3 percent of all U.S. households had ever 

used one or more of the following types of AFS: 

non-bank money orders, non-bank check cashing 

and non-bank remittances, payday loans, pawn shop, 

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

auto title loans. About one in four households (24.9 

percent) used at least one of the AFS in the previous 

12 months, and 12.0 percent of all households had 

used an AFS within the last 30 days.1

These results are consistent with previous survey 

results; however, they are not directly comparable 

because the types of AFS that were asked about differ 

across all three surveys. In 2011, 42.9 percent of 

households had ever used an AFS, and 25.4 percent 

of households had used one or more AFS in the last 

year, including 12.0 percent who had used an alternative financial service within the last 30 days.2

Transaction AFS continued to be more widely used 

than credit AFS.3 In 2013, 21.9 percent of all households had used one or more transaction AFS in the 

1 “Within the last 30 days” refers to whether the respondent had used 

one or more of the AFS products within 30 days of the survey month, June 

2013. Such measures of “recent use” may be affected by seasonality of 

AFS use. 

2 The 2011 list of AFS did not include auto title loans, which are included 

in the 2013 list of AFS. Removing auto title loans to make the list of AFS 

comparable between 2011 and 2013, the proportion of households in 2013 

that had used any AFS in the last 12 months would have been 24.7 

percent, and 11.9 percent of all households would have used an AFS in 

the last 30 days.

3 The transaction AFS included in the 2013 survey are non-bank money 

orders, non-bank check cashing, and non-bank remittances. The AFS 

credit products are payday loans, pawn shops, refund anticipation loans, 

rent-to-own services, and auto title loans.

Figure 6.1 Recency Of Household AFS Use, 2013

Used in the last 

12 months 

 24.9 

Used over a year ago 

 14.4 Never used 

 55.3 

Unknown

 5.4 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Last 30 

days

12.0

Last 2 -

12 months

12.9
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

last year, and 7.0 percent had used one or more AFS 

credit products in that time.4

4 In comparison, in 2011, 23.3 percent of households had used one or 

more transaction AFS in the last 12 months. Considering only the types of 

credit AFS included in the 2011 survey, which did not include auto title 

loans, the proportion of households that had used a credit AFS in the last 

12 months was 6.6 percent in 2013 compared with 6.0 percent in 2011. 

Appendix Table D-1 AFS Use In Last 12 Months By Banking Status And Household Characteristics, 2013

For all households, row percent

Characteristics

Number of Households 

(1000s) Percent of Households Has Used (Percent) Has Not Used (Percent) Unknown (Percent)

All 123,750 100 24.9 69.3 5.8

Unbanked

Unbanked 9,582 100 63.2 29.9 7.0

Has bank account 114,168 100 21.7 72.6 5.7

Household Type

Married couple 59,102 100 20.1 74.7 5.2

Unmarried female-headed family 15,802 100 41.3 52.9 5.9

Unmarried male-headed family 6,327 100 37.5 57.3 5.2

Female individual 22,150 100 21.2 72.0 6.8

Male individual 20,240 100 26.2 67.1 6.7

Other 128 100 31.7 60.8 7.6

Race/Ethnicity

Black 16,801 100 46.1 45.8 8.1

Hispanic 14,948 100 40.3 53.6 6.1

Asian 5,882 100 18.7 74.5 6.8

American Indian/Alaskan 1,464 100 38.6 56.5 5.0

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 314 100 27.2 67.6 5.2

White non-Black non-Hispanic 84,310 100 18.1 76.6 5.3

Other non-Black non-Hispanic NA NA NA NA NA

Spanish only language spoken

Spanish is not the only language spoken 121,097 100 24.4 69.8 5.8

Spanish is only language spoken 2,654 100 46.3 48.2 5.5

Nativity

U.S.-born 106,397 100 23.4 71.0 5.6

Foreign born citizen 9,252 100 26.9 65.9 7.1

Foreign born non citizen 8,102 100 42.8 50.3 6.9

Age Group

15 to 24 years 6,244 100 41.5 53.5 5.0

25 to 34 years 20,464 100 33.6 61.2 5.2

35 to 44 years 21,408 100 29.6 65.0 5.4

45 to 54 years 24,551 100 26.7 67.6 5.7

55 to 64 years 22,710 100 20.9 73.6 5.4

65 years or more 28,372 100 13.1 79.8 7.1

Disability Status

Disabled 10,841 100 38.7 55.3 6.0

Not Disabled 78,293 100 26.0 68.7 5.4

Not Applicable 34,616 100 18.2 75.1 6.7
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Appendix Table D-1 AFS Use In Last 12 Months By Banking Status And Household Characteristics, 2013

For all households, row percent

Characteristics

Number of Households 

(1000s) Percent of Households Has Used (Percent) Has Not Used (Percent) Unknown (Percent)

Education

No high school degree 13,871 100 39.5 54.4 6.2

High school degree 33,684 100 28.7 65.0 6.3

Some college 36,007 100 26.9 67.5 5.6

College degree 40,188 100 14.9 79.6 5.5

Employment Status

Employed 75,587 100 25.6 69.1 5.3

Unemployed 5,436 100 41.0 54.2 4.8

Not in labor force 42,727 100 21.6 71.7 6.8

Family Income

Less than $15,000 19,044 100 39.1 54.5 6.4

Between $15,000 and $30,000 21,763 100 33.1 60.5 6.4

Between $30,000 and $50,000 24,496 100 26.5 67.2 6.3

Between $50,000 and $75,000 22,552 100 20.9 73.6 5.4

At Least $75,000 35,895 100 13.8 81.2 5.0

Homeownership

Homeowner 80,136 100 17.0 77.5 5.5

Non-homeowner 43,614 100 39.4 54.2 6.4

Geographic Region

Northeast 22,199 100 23.6 70.4 6.0

Midwest 27,315 100 21.0 73.2 5.8

South 46,738 100 29.3 64.9 5.8

West 27,498 100 22.3 71.9 5.7

Metropolitan Status

Metropolitan area - Principal City 34,510 100 29.6 64.1 6.3

Metropolitan area - Balance 51,229 100 21.2 72.7 6.0

Not in Metropolitan area 19,325 100 26.3 68.6 5.1

Not Identified 18,686 100 24.8 70.1 5.1

NA= Not available because the sample size was too small to produce a precise estimate.

-= For this table cell, the estimated proportion would round to zero. The population proportion, however, is likely to be slightly greater than zero.

Figures do not always reconcile to totals because of rounding.

Many households that used AFS used more than one 

type of product or service. Among all households, 8.0 

percent used two or more types of AFS in the last 

year. Among AFS users, almost one-third (32.0 

percent) used multiple products in the last year. 

For the remainder of this section, we focus on the 

AFS included in the 2013 survey. We refer to households that have used AFS in the last 12 months as 

“AFS users.” AFS usage in the last 12 months is 

referred to as “AFS use,” while usage in the last 30 

days is referred to as “recent AFS use.” 

AFS Use by Household Characteristics and Banking 

Status 

The patterns of AFS use among households with 

different socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and with different banking statuses were very 

similar to results from previous surveys. AFS use was 

higher among younger, less educated, lower-income, 

and working-age disabled households. In addition, a 

higher proportion of unmarried female-headed 

family households and non-Asian minority households used AFS. 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 6.2 Household Use Of Transaction And Credit AFS In The Last 12 Months

Figure 6.3 Household Use Of Transaction And Credit AFS In The Last 30 Days

Unbanked Banked

Transaction AFS

Credit AFS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

60.5 

16.7 

18.6 

6.2 

Unbanked Banked

Transaction AFS

Credit AFS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

45.2

5.4

7.8

2.0
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

The rate of AFS use among unbanked households 

was high: almost two-thirds (63.2 percent) of them 

used an AFS. More than 1 in 5 (21.7 percent) households with bank accounts also used AFS. Both banked 

and unbanked households made more use of transaction AFS than credit.

Unbanked households were also more likely than 

banked households to have recently used an AFS. 

Almost half of unbanked households (47.0 percent) 

had recently used an AFS, compared with 9.1 percent 

of banked households. Notably, a much higher 

proportion of banked households that opened their 

account within the last year used AFS in the recent 

past (31.7 percent) compared to households that had 

been banked for more than a year (8.9 percent).

Figure 6.4 Use of AFS In Last 30 Days By Households That 

Used AFS In The Last 12 Months

Among households that used an AFS, unbanked 

households were more likely to have used an AFS 

recently and to have used more than one AFS product compared to underbanked households.5

 This 

suggests that unbanked households that used an AFS 

may have been more active users of AFS than underbanked households. Specifically, 74.4 percent of 

unbanked households that used AFS in the last 12 

months also recently used an AFS compared with 

5 Underbanked households are defined as households with bank 

accounts that also used at least one AFS in the last 12 months.

42.0 percent of underbanked households. And more 

than half (54.0 percent) of unbanked households that 

used AFS used multiple AFS products compared with 

about one in four (26.6 percent) underbanked 

households. 

Figure 6.5 Count Of AFS Types For Households That Used AFS 

In The Last 12 Months

Use of Transaction AFS Products

Consistent with findings from the previous surveys, 

money orders were the most commonly used AFS, 

which were used by 17.3 percent of all households. 

The other transaction AFS were used by smaller 

proportions of households: 6.5 percent of all households used non-bank check cashing, and 3.7 percent 

used remittances. 

Unbanked households appeared to be active users of 

transaction AFS, especially of money orders and 

check cashing. For example, 60.5 percent of 

unbanked households had used a transaction AFS 

and 45.2 percent had done so recently. Among 

Unbanked Underbanked

0

20

40

60

80

74.4 

42.0 

Used 1 AFS 

 43.1 

Used 2 AFS 

 34.6 Used 3 or more AFS 

 19.4 

Unknown

 2.9 

Unbanked

Used 1 AFS 

 71.3 

Used 2 AFS 

 18.8 

Used 3 or more AFS

 7.8 

Unknown

 2.1 

Underbanked
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 6.6 Use Of Specific AFS By Unbanked Households That Used AFS In The Last 12 Months

Figure 6.7 Use Of Specific AFS By Underbanked Households That Used AFS In The Last 12 Months

Auto Title Loans

Rent-To-Own

Refund Anticipation Loans

Payday Loans

Pawn Shop

Remittances

Check Cashing

Money Orders

Used in Last 12 Months

Used in Last 30 Days

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.8

2.7

3.2

7.1

6.0

1.3

4.3

4.7

15.6

7.8

14.5

38.5

56.8

52.6

75.0

Auto Title Loans

Rent-To-Own

Refund Anticipation Loans

Payday Loans

Pawn Shop

Remittances

Check Cashing

Money Orders

Used in Last 12 Months

Used in Last 30 Days

0 20 40 60 80 100

1.3

3.6

2.7

5.7

7.4

3.7

8.8

2.3

10.6

6.2

14.9

7.7

18.8

26.3

68.0
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

unbanked households that had used an AFS (either 

transaction or credit), more than 3 out of 4 (75.0 

percent) had obtained a non-bank money order and 

more than half (52.6 percent) had done so recently. 

Also, among unbanked households that had used an 

AFS, more than half (56.8 percent) had cashed a 

check at a non-bank location and more than 1 in 3 

(38.5 percent) had done so in the last 30 days. The 

high proportions of unbanked households that used 

non-bank check cashing and non-bank money orders 

in the last 12 months and in the last 30 days suggests 

that some unbanked households were using these 

transaction AFS products as substitutes for the transactions functions provided by a checking account.

Underbanked households also frequently used 

non-bank money orders (68.0 percent) although only 

about 1 in 4 (26.3 percent) did so recently. Even 

fewer underbanked households used non-bank check 

cashing (18.8 percent) and fewer than 1 in 10 (7.7 

percent) did so recently.

Use of Credit AFS Products

AFS credit products were less commonly used than 

transaction AFS, consistent with previous survey 

findings: 7.0 percent of all households used at least 

one type of AFS credit product. Auto title loans, 

which were asked about for the first time in 2013, 

were used by less than 1 percent (0.9 percent) of 

households in the last year. The results for other AFS 

credit products were consistent with results from 

2011. Two percent of all households used payday 

loans, 2.9 percent used pawn shops, 1.5 percent used 

rent-to-own stores, and 1.8 percent used refund 

anticipation loans. 

The relatively low use of credit AFS among both 

unbanked and underbanked households may be due 

to the nature of the products and the fact that transaction needs are often regular and recurring, while 

credit needs, or the opportunities to obtain credit, 

may not occur as frequently. 

Relatively small shares of unbanked households used 

pawn shops (9.9 percent), rent-to-own services (4.5 

percent), refund anticipation loans (3.8 percent), and 

auto title loans (1.7 percent). Also, only 2.7 percent of 

unbanked households used payday loans, which 

generally require the borrower to have a bank 

account, in the past 12 months.6 Among unbanked 

households that used at least one AFS in the last 12 

6 Among previously banked households, about 3.5 percent reported 

receiving a payday loan within the last 12 months.

months, use of AFS credit products was somewhat 

higher: 15.6 percent used pawn shops, 7.1 percent 

used rent-to-own services, 6.0 percent used refund 

anticipation loans, 2.7 percent used auto title loans 

and 4.3 percent used payday loans in the last 12 

months.

Among underbanked households, 10.6 percent used 

pawn shops, 8.8 percent used payday loans, 7.4 

percent used refund anticipation loans, 5.7 percent 

used rent-to-own services, and 3.6 percent used auto 

title loans. 

Locations From Which Households Obtained AFS 

Products

The 2013 results provide new insights about where 

households obtained the AFS that they used. Grocery, 

liquor, convenience and drug stores were the most 

common locations from which households obtained 

transaction AFS, although relatively large proportions 

also obtained these services at large retail/department 

stores (such as Walmart or Kmart). Specifically, 37.8 

percent of households that used non-bank check 

cashing did so at a grocery, liquor, convenience or 

drugstore, while 31.4 percent used a large retail or 

department store and 24.3 percent cashed checks at a 

stand-alone non-bank financial services provider. 

Grocery, liquor, convenience and drug stores were 

also the most common non-bank locations from 

which households purchased money orders: 37.8 

percent of households that used non-bank money 

orders bought them at such stores. Another 29.7 

percent purchased their money orders from the post 

office.

Almost one-third (32.9 percent) of households that 

used non-bank remittances most commonly obtained 

them from grocery, liquor, convenience and drug 

stores, 19.0 percent from retail/department stores, 

and 26.3 percent from standalone AFS providers.7

Very small proportions of households that used 

non-bank remittances most commonly accessed these 

services via a mobile phone (1.2 percent) or online 

using a computer (6.9 percent).

Relative to underbanked households, larger proportions of unbanked households that used AFS 

obtained their transaction AFS products from standalone AFS providers. Specifically, 29.3 percent of 

7 The proportion of remittance users who responded that they got their 

remittances from somewhere other than the choices provided, or did not 

know where they were obtained, was relatively high, at 13.7 percent.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 6.8 Non-Bank Locations Used By Households To Cash Checks In The Last 12 Months

Figure 6.9 Non-Bank Locations Used By Households To Obtain Money Orders In The Last 12 Months

Other/Unknown

Stand alone non−bank nancial services store

Large retail or department store

Grocery, liquor, convenience, or drug store

Underbanked

Unbanked

0 20 40 60 80 100

4.4

8.0

29.3

20.6

30.2

32.3

36.1

39.1

Other/Unknown

Stand alone non−bank nancial services store

Post Oce

Large retail or department store

Grocery, liquor, convenience, or drug store

Underbanked

Unbanked

0 20 40 60 80 100

2.3

2.2

18.4

9.0

19.6

32.4

21.6

18.7

38.1

37.7
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 6.10 Non-Bank Locations Used By Households To Send Remittances In The Last 12 Months

Other/Unknown

Online through Computer

Mobile Phone

Large retail or department store

Stand alone non−bank nancial services store

Grocery, liquor, convenience, or drug store

Underbanked

Unbanked

0 20 40 60 80 100

9.1

14.8

0.5

8.5

0.6

1.3

15.5

19.9

36.4

23.9

37.9

31.7

unbanked households that used non-bank check 

cashing most commonly went to standalone AFS 

providers, compared to 20.6 percent of underbanked 

check cashing users. In addition, 36.4 percent of 

unbanked households that used non-bank remittances did so most commonly at a standalone AFS 

store, compared to 23.9 percent of underbanked 

remittance users. The shares of unbanked and underbanked households that used non-bank money orders 

who most commonly obtained money orders at a 

standalone AFS store were 18.4 percent and 9.0 

percent, respectively. 

Underbanked users were more likely to use other 

locations to obtain AFS. For instance, almost one 

third (32.4 percent) of underbanked money order 

users most commonly obtained their money orders 

from the post office, compared to 19.6 percent of 

unbanked households that used money orders. Also, 

almost 10 percent (9.8 percent) of underbanked 

remittance users used non-bank remittance services 

online or over their mobile phone most commonly, 

but only 1.1 percent of unbanked remittance users 

did so.

The survey did not ask detailed questions about locations from which households obtained most of the 

credit AFS that they used. However, the survey did 

question households that had used payday loans 

about their use of online lending, and found that 15.5 

percent of households that used payday loans most 

commonly obtained them online. 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

7. Access to Mobile Phones and the Internet 

During the past few years, financial institutions, 

non-bank prepaid card issuers, and AFS providers 

have placed more emphasis on interacting with 

customers through the Internet and mobile phones, 

especially smartphones. Customers must have access 

to the Internet and to mobile phones to take advantage of these new communication channels. Therefore, the 2013 survey included new questions about 

household access to mobile phones and the Internet. 

Access to Mobile Phones and Smartphones

Table 7.1 Access To Mobile Phones And 

Smartphones By Banking Status

For all households, column percent

Characteristics All Unbanked

Banked: 

Underbanked

Banked: 

Fully 

Banked

Banked: 

Underbanked 

Status 

Unknown

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 123,750 9,582 24,757 82,892 6,519

Percent of 

Households 100 100 100 100 100

Mobile Phone 

(Percent)

Has mobile 

phone 82.7 68.1 90.5 86.8 22.0

Does not 

have 

mobile 

phone 12.4 25.5 8.5 12.7 3.9

Unknown 4.9 6.4 1.0 0.5 74.2

Smartphone 

(Percent)

Smartphone 55.7 33.1 64.5 59.0 13.6

Non-Smart- phone 26.5 34.4 25.5 27.5 6.1

No mobile 

phone 12.4 25.5 8.5 12.7 3.9

Unknown 5.4 6.9 1.5 0.9 76.5

The vast majority of households (82.7 percent) had 

access to a mobile phone, of which two thirds (67.3 

percent of all mobile phones or 55.7 percent overall) 

were smartphones.1 Relative to fully banked households, underbanked households were somewhat more 

likely to have access to a mobile phone (90.5 percent 

vs. 86.8 percent) or smartphone (64.5 percent vs. 59.0 

1 The 2013 survey asked households whether they owned or had regular 

access to a mobile phone. Ownership or regular access to a mobile phone 

is measured at the household level. The householder might or might not 

have been a mobile phone user even if the household reported owning or 

having regular access to a mobile phone. For the purposes of this analysis, the term mobile phone user refers to a household that owned or had 

regular access to a mobile phone.

percent). In contrast, unbanked households were 

considerably less likely to have access to either a 

mobile phone (68.1 percent) or a smartphone (33.1 

percent). In particular, households that had never 

been banked had the lowest rates of access to both 

mobile phones (61.1 percent) and smartphones (26.0 

percent).

Access to mobile phones increased with income and 

education. For example, about 70 percent (71.9 

percent) of households with income below $30,000 

had access to a mobile phone, compared to 91.6 

percent of households with income of at least 

$75,000. Similarly, two-thirds (67.0 percent) of 

households without a high school degree had access 

to a mobile phone compared to 89.5 percent of 

households with a college degree (see Appendix Table 

E-2). 

The disparity in access by income or education was 

even more pronounced in the case of access to smartphones. Close to 35 percent (34.8 percent) of those 

with income below $30,000 have access to a smartphone, compared with almost 80 percent (77.7 

percent) of those with income above $75,000 (see 

Appendix Table E-3). 

Access to mobile phones and smartphones also 

differed by age. Households age 65 or older had 

considerably lower rates of access to mobile phones 

(67.3 percent) than their younger counterparts. For 

example, mobile phone access rates were 83.5 percent 

for households age 55 to 64 and ranged between 86.6 

percent and 89.9 percent for households younger 

than age 55 (see Appendix Table E-2). The same held 

true for access to smartphones. Fewer than 1 in 4 

households age 65 and older (23.2 percent) had 

access to smartphones compared with 48.7 percent 

for households age 55 to 64 and 62.8 percent for 

households age 45 to 54. Smartphone access rates for 

households younger than age 45 were considerably 

higher and ranged from 72.1 percent to 76.5 percent 

(see Appendix Table E-3). 

Internet Access 

Three out of four households (75.7 percent) had 

regular access to the Internet, either at home or 

outside of the home at locations such as school, work, 

or the public library. Internet access among underbanked (81.9 percent) and fully banked households 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 7.1 Access To Mobile Phones And Smartphones By Income

Figure 7.2 Access To Mobile Phones And Smartphones By Education

< $15k $15k−<$30K $30k−<$50k $50k−<$75k >=$75k

Has Mobile Phone

Has Smartphone

0

20

40

60

80

100

69.2

31.3

74.4

37.9

82.3

51.0

88.3

63.4

91.6

77.7

No high school degree High school degree Some college College degree

Has Mobile Phone

Has Smartphone

0

20

40

60

80

100

67.0

30.1

78.2

44.2

85.4

59.4

89.5

70.8
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

(82.0 percent) were similarly widespread, but 

unbanked households were considerably less likely to 

have Internet access (43.0 percent).

Table 7.2 Internet Access By Banking Status

For all households, column percent

Characteristics All Unbanked 

Banked: 

Underbanked 

Banked: 

Fully 

Banked 

Banked: 

Underbanked 

Status 

Unknown

Number of 

House- holds 

(1000s) 123,750 9,582 24,757 82,892 6,519

Percent of 

Households 100 100 100 100 100

Internet 

Access 

(Percent) 

Has access 75.7 43.0 81.9 82.0 19.8

Does not 

have 

access 19.3 50.2 17.0 17.5 5.1

Unknown 5.0 6.8 1.1 0.5 75.1

Among unbanked households, those that had never 

been banked had the lowest rate of Internet access 

(33.3 percent). This group also had the lowest rates of 

access to mobile phones (61.1 percent) and smartphones (26.0 percent). Previously banked households 

that had been unbanked for more than 12 months 

also had lower rates of Internet access (52.2 percent) 

compared with recently unbanked households (66.6 

percent). 

Relative to Internet access for White non-Black 

non-Hispanic households (79.1 percent), significantly 

lower proportions of black (65.3 percent) and 

Hispanic (66.4 percent) households had Internet 

access. Access to the Internet also increased sharply 

with income and educational attainment (see Appendix Table E-4). 

Figure 7.3 Access To Mobile Phones And Smartphones By Age

15 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 years or more

Has Mobile Phone

Has Smartphone

0

20

40

60

80

100

88.9

76.2

89.9

76.5

89.1

72.1

86.6

62.8

83.5

48.7

67.3

23.2
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

8. Banking Methods

Knowing how households interact with their financial 

institutions can help inform discussions about how 

best to serve different groups of consumers. This 

information can also help illuminate potential effects 

of bank decisions such as opening or closing 

branches or providing access to different banking 

methods (for example, mobile banking) on bringing 

households into, and keeping them in, the mainstream financial system. 

To better understand how banked households interact with their banks, the 2013 survey asked these 

households whether they had used any of the following in the past 12 months: bank tellers, ATMs/kiosks, 

telephone banking, online banking, mobile banking, 

or another banking method.1 The survey also asked 

banked households to identify the most common 

1 Telephone banking was defined as using phone calls or automated 

voice or touch tone calls to access a bank account. Online banking was 

defined as accessing a bank account using a desktop or laptop computer, 

or a tablet such as an iPad. Mobile banking was defined as using text 

messages, mobile apps, or using a mobile phone’s Internet browser or 

email to access a bank account.

method used, which we refer to in this report as the 

household’s primary or main banking method.

One percent of banked households reported not 

having accessed their accounts in the last 12 months 

and another 3.8 percent did not report whether they 

had accessed their accounts in the same period. All 

estimates reported in this section are for banked 

households that reported having accessed their 

accounts at least once in the last 12 months (95.2 

percent of all banked households).

Most banked households used multiple methods to 

access their bank accounts in the last 12 months. 

Seven out of ten (71.1 percent) used at least two 

methods and almost half (47.9 percent) used three or 

more of these methods. 

Figure 8.1 Methods Used To Access Bank Accounts In Last 12 Months

Other

Mobile Banking

Telephone Banking

Online Banking

ATM/Kiosk

Bank Teller

Method Used

Main Method Used

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.8

1.0

5.7

23.2

3.3

26.1

32.9

55.1

24.4

69.6

32.2

78.8
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Figure 8.2 All Methods Used To Access Bank Accounts In Last 12 Months By Banking Status

Figure 8.3 Primary Method Used To Access Bank Accounts In Last 12 Months By Banking Status

Other

Mobile Banking

Telephone Banking

Online Banking

ATM/Kiosk

Bank Teller

Underbanked

Fully−Banked

0 20 40 60 80 100

1.1

0.7

21.7

29.2

24.3

32.7

56.2

52.6

67.9

76.4

78.7

79.2

Other

Telephone Banking

Mobile Banking

Online Banking

Bank Teller

ATM/Kiosk

Underbanked

Fully−Banked

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.8

0.5

3.0

4.6

4.7

9.5

35.1

26.6

33.0

29.0

23.0

29.5
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Use of Banking Methods by Banking Status 

Among banked households that accessed their 

accounts in the last 12 months, the vast majority used 

bank tellers (78.8 percent) or ATMs/kiosks (69.6 

percent), while more than half used online banking 

(55.1 percent) and almost a quarter (23.2 percent) 

used mobile banking.2

Bank tellers and online banking were the primary 

methods used by the largest share of households. 

Equal shares of banked households (almost a third 

each) reported using online banking and bank tellers 

as their most common banking method in the last 12 

months. Almost a quarter of banked households said 

they most commonly used ATMs/kiosks and 5.7 

percent said they primarily used mobile banking.

Regardless of whether the household was fully 

banked or underbanked, bank tellers, ATMs/kiosks, 

and online banking were the top three primary methods used, although their order and the relative shares 

of households that used each method differed slightly 

by banking status. Underbanked households were less 

likely to use online banking as their main banking 

method (26.6 percent) compared with fully banked 

households (35.1 percent). Conversely, underbanked 

households were more likely to use mobile banking 

as their main banking method (9.5 percent) 

compared with fully banked households (4.7 percent).

2 Estimates do not reflect the frequency of use, only whether households 

used a particular access method at least once in the last 12 months.

Primary Banking Method and Direct Deposit, Internet Access and Mobile Phone Access

Higher proportions of households without direct 

deposit, Internet access or mobile phone access used 

bank tellers as their primary method of accessing 

their accounts in the last 12 months. Households 

without direct deposit, Internet access or mobile 

phone access were also less likely to use online banking as their primary method (see Table 8.1).

Use of Banking Methods by Household 

Characteristics

Income and Education

Banked households with lower income or educational 

attainment were considerably more likely than higher-income or more educated households to bank 

primarily through bank tellers and were less likely to 

bank primarily online. While this result is consistent 

with the lower rates of Interent access among 

lower-income and less educated households, they 

were less likely to use online banking and more likely 

to use bank tellers even after taking into account their 

lower rates of Internet access. For example, households with incomes of less than $30,000 were more 

than twice as likely to primarily use bank tellers than 

online banking. In contrast, households with incomes 

between $50,000 and $75,000 and incomes of at least 

$75,000 were much more likely (a third to more than 

two times more likely) to mainly use online banking 

than bank tellers (see Appendix Table F-2). 

Table 8.1 Main Banking Method By Whether Household Had Internet Access, Mobile Phone Access Or Direct 

Deposit

For all banked households that accessed their account in the last 12 months, column percent

All Has Internet Access No Internet Access

Has Mobile Phone 

Access

No Mobile Phone 

Access Has Direct Deposit No Direct Deposit

Number of Households 

(1000s) 108,295 89,578 19,048 95,811 12,850 91,696 19,071

Percent of Households 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Main Banking Method 

(Percent)

Bank Teller 32.2 25.8 63.0 28.5 59.8 28.7 48.7

ATM/Kiosk 24.4 24.5 24.2 24.8 22.0 24.5 23.8

Telephone Banking 3.3 3.2 4.1 3.3 3.6 3.5 2.5

Online Banking 32.9 38.9 4.7 35.9 11.2 35.8 19.3

Mobile Banking 5.7 6.7 1.3 6.5 0.4 6.0 4.6

Other 0.8 0.5 2.4 0.5 2.7 0.8 0.5

Unknown 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.6
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

Similarly, less than 10 percent (8.8 percent) of households without a high school degree banked primarily 

online, compared to close to half (48.0 percent) of 

households with college degrees. Over half (55.6 

percent) of the households without a high school 

degree and more than two out of five (41.8 percent) 

households with a high school degree used bank tellers as their main banking method, relative to one in 

five (21.0 percent) households with a college degree 

(see Appendix Table F-2). 

Age

Differences in banking methods by age were also 

quite distinct. Considerably higher proportions of 

households age 45 and above most commonly used a 

bank teller compared to households under age 45. 

For example, more than half of households age 65 

and above (54.6 percent) primarily used bank tellers, 

compared with 36.1 percent of households age 55 to 

64 and 26.7 percent of households age 45 to 54. For 

households age 44 and below, the share that primarily 

used bank tellers ranged from 17.0 percent to 21.1 

percent.

The opposite was true for mobile banking, which was 

considerably more prevalent among younger households. While one in five (20.3 percent) households 

under age 25 primarily used mobile banking, less 

than 10 percent of households age 35 and above did 

so. 

The use of online banking also decreased with householder age, with the exception of the youngest households (under age 24). These households had the 

second lowest rate (27.8 percent) and the oldest 

households (age 65 and above) had the lowest rate 

(17.8 percent) of using online banking as their 

primary banking method. See Appendix Table F-2 for 

more detail on differences in banking methods by 

age.

Race and Ethnicity

Black (21.4 percent) and Hispanic (23.0 percent) 

households were significantly less likely to use online 

banking as their primary method for accessing 

accounts compared with Non-Black Non-Hispanic 

White households (35.8 percent). While this is 

consistent with their lower rates of Internet access, 

they were less likely to use online banking as their 

primary method even after taking into account their 

lower rates of Internet access.

Black (31.6 percent) and Hispanic (29.9 percent) 

households were also more likely to use ATMs/kiosks 

Figure 8.4 Use of Bank Tellers, Online Banking And Mobile Banking As Primary Method By Income

< $15k $15k−<$30K $30k−<$50k $50k−<$75k >=$75k

Bank Teller

Online Banking

Mobile Banking

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

47.5

14.5

4.0

44.9

17.3

5.3

35.7

26.7

6.3

28.3

36.8

6.4

20.1

49.4

5.7
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 8.5 Use Of Bank Tellers, Online Banking And Mobile Banking As Primary Method By Education

No high school degree High school degree Some college College degree

Bank Teller

Online Banking

Mobile Banking

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

55.7

8.8

2.4

41.8

21.0

4.3

30.2

32.5

7.4

21.0

48.0

6.2

Figure 8.6 Use Of Bank Tellers, Online Banking And Mobile Banking As Primary Method by Age

15 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 years or older

Bank Teller

Online Banking

Mobile Banking

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

21.1

27.8

20.3

17.0

42.5

13.2

21.1

41.5

8.9

26.7

37.7

3.7

36.1

31.6

1.4

54.7

17.8

0.6
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

as their primary method for accessing their accounts, 

compared to 22.5 percent of Non-Black Non-Hispanic White households. 

Use of A Single Banking Method

As noted previously, 71.1 percent of banked households used more than one banking method to access 

their account in the last 12 months. However, three 

in ten households (28.8 percent) used only one 

method. Among households that used only one 

method to access their account, the majority (60.7 

percent) used a bank teller, one in five (19.8 percent) 

used only an ATM and 13.2 percent used only online 

banking. 

The use of bank tellers as the only banking channel 

was heavily concentrated among certain demographic 

groups. Households that exclusively used bank tellers 

were more likely to be age 65 and above, had incomes 

under $30,000, and were less educated. Households 

in rural areas were also considerably more likely to 

use tellers as their primary banking method (see 

Appendix Table F-3).

Use of Multiple Banking Methods

The number of banking methods used also varied 

depending on the household’s primary banking 

method. Most households that primarily used bank 

tellers to access their accounts used them as the only 

banking method (54.2 percent) or along with one 

other banking method (25.0 percent). In contrast, 

most households that mainly banked online used 2 

additional banking methods (median number of 

banking methods was 3). Households that primarily 

used mobile banking used 3 additional methods 

(median number of banking methods used was 4). 

Examining the additional banking methods used in 

conjunction with the primary method, the survey 

shows that ATMs were the most likely secondary 

method used by households that primarily banked via 

teller (37.2 percent). The majority of households that 

primarily banked online or via mobile banking used a 

variety of other banking methods (see Table 8.3).

More than three out of four households that primarily used online or mobile banking also used ATMs/

kiosks or bank tellers. Among households that 

primarily used online banking, a considerable share 

(78.1 percent) used ATMs/kiosks, bank tellers (71.9 

percent), and mobile banking (35.0 percent). Only 

11.6 percent exclusively used online banking. Among 

households that used mobile banking as their primary 

method, 84.6 percent used ATMs/kiosks, 79.5 percent 

banked online, and 71.1 percent used bank tellers. 

Only 7.5 percent exclusively used mobile banking. 

These results suggest that online and mobile banking 

are still a complement to more traditional banking 

methods.

Results were generally similar regardless of banking 

status: underbanked households were slightly more 

likely to use additional methods than fully banked 

households. The number of banking methods used 

increased sharply with income and educational 

attainment.3 Results by age indicated a stark contrast 

between households age 65 or older relative to 

younger households. Almost half (47.7 percent) of 

the households age 65 and older exclusively used one 

banking method, a markedly higher proportion than 

3 Even when controlling for the primary method of use, income and 

education appear to have an effect on the number of banking methods 

households used to access their bank account.

Table 8.2 Number Of Banking Methods Used By Primary Method

For all banked households that accessed their account in the last 12 months, column percent

All Bank Teller ATM/Kiosk 

Telephone 

Banking 

Online 

Banking 

Mobile 

Banking Other Unknown

Number of Households (1000s) 108,295 34,897 26,398 3,591 35,600 6,192 846 773

Percent of Households 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Number of Banking Methods Used (Percent) 

1 Method 28.8 54.2 23.4 22.9 11.6 7.5 81.5 - 

2 Methods 23.2 25.0 34.9 17.9 16.1 7.8 9.7 39.6

3 Methods 22.5 12.7 22.9 28.3 32.6 18.0 2.6 25.4

4 to 6 Methods 25.4 8.2 18.8 30.9 39.7 66.7 6.1 35.0

Mean 2.5 1.8 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.7 1.4 3.0

Median 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0

-= For this table cell, the estimated proportion would round to zero. The population proportion, however, is likely to be slightly greater than zero.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

that prevailing among younger households. For 

example, less than a quarter (22.8 percent) of households below age 55 used one banking method. 

Use of Mobile Banking

Mobile banking is an emerging banking method that 

has raised the interest of industry and policy stakeholders as a potential tool for economic inclusion. To 

gain insight into this potential and understand how 

consumers are using this new delivery channel, the 

2013 survey included additional questions on access 

to mobile technology, including use of the Internet 

and mobile phones, and the types of activities that 

consumers perform via mobile banking. Survey 

results show a higher incidence of mobile banking 

among underbanked consumers relative to the fully 

banked. Underbanked consumers also were more 

likely to use mobile as their primary banking method. 

If mobile banking adoption continues to follow this 

pattern, clear opportunities may emerge to use 

mobile to more fully-financially engage underbanked 

consumers. 

Overall, 23.2 percent of banked households that 

accessed their account in the past 12 months used 

mobile banking. Mobile banking usage among households with access to smartphones was even higher 

(36.2 percent). 

A greater share of underbanked households (29.2 

percent) used mobile banking than fully banked 

households (21.7 percent) when smartphone access 

was not taken into account. Underbanked households 

with access to smartphones (42.0 percent) were also 

more likely to use mobile banking compared with 

fully banked households with access to smartphones 

(34.0 percent).

Main Banking Method Among Households That 

Used Mobile Banking

As mobile banking draws more consumers, it is 

useful to see how households that use this emerging 

channel interact with their financial institutions. 

Consistent with expectations, the large majority of 

households that used mobile banking (49.5 percent) 

Table 8.3 All Banking Methods Used By Main Banking Method

For all banked households that accessed their account in the last 12 months, column percent

All Bank Teller ATM/Kiosk 

Telephone 

Banking 

Online 

Banking 

Mobile 

Banking Other Unknown

Number of Households (1000s) 108,295 34,897 26,398 3,591 35,600 6,192 846 773

Percent of Households 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

All Methods

Bank Teller (Percent) 

Yes 78.8 100.0 65.7 64.4 71.9 71.1 13.2 87.8

No 21.2 - 34.3 35.6 28.1 28.9 86.8 12.2

ATM/Kiosk (Percent) 

Yes 69.6 37.2 100.0 61.1 78.1 84.6 9.7 90.1

No 30.4 62.8 - 38.9 21.9 15.4 90.3 9.9

Telephone Banking (Percent) 

Yes 26.1 14.5 24.0 100.0 29.6 38.7 6.8 37.8

No 73.9 85.5 76.0 - 70.4 61.3 93.2 62.2

Online Banking (Percent) 

Yes 55.1 20.0 39.2 36.0 100.0 79.5 6.0 63.0

No 44.9 80.0 60.8 64.0 - 20.5 94.0 37.0

Mobile Banking (Percent) 

Yes 23.2 5.4 14.6 16.2 35.0 100.0 1.3 28.0

No 76.8 94.6 85.4 83.8 65.0 - 98.7 72.0

Other (Percent) 

Yes 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 100.0 0.7

No 99.0 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.8 - 99.3

-= For this table cell, the estimated proportion would round to zero. The population proportion, however, is likely to be slightly greater than zero.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

primarily banked online, and one-quarter (24.6 

percent) used mobile banking as their main banking 

method. In fact, the share of mobile banking users 

that used tellers as their main banking method (7.4 

percent) was considerably lower than that of 

non-mobile banking users (39.7 percent). 

Table 8.4 Primary Banking Method Used By 

Households That Did And Did Not Use Mobile 

Banking

For all banked households that accessed their account in the last 12 months, 

column percent

All 

Used Mobile 

Banking 

(Percent)

Did Not Use 

Mobile 

Banking 

(Percent)

Number of Households (1000s) 108,295 25,165 83,130

Percent of Households 100 100 100

Primary Banking Method 

(Percent) 

Bank Teller 32.2 7.4 39.7

ATM/Kiosk 24.4 15.3 27.1

Telephone Banking 3.3 2.3 3.6

Online Banking 32.9 49.5 27.9

Mobile Banking 5.7 24.6 - 

Other 0.8 - 1.0

Unknown 0.7 0.9 0.7

-= For this table cell, the estimated proportion would round to zero. The population 

proportion, however, is likely to be slightly greater than zero.

Among mobile banking users, the use of online and 

mobile banking technology differed by banking 

status. Underbanked mobile banking users were 

considerably less likely (38.1 percent) than fully 

banked mobile banking users (54.2 percent) to use 

online banking as their main banking method. In 

contrast, underbanked households that used mobile 

banking were more likely (32.4 percent) to rely on it 

as their primary method than fully banked households that used mobile banking (21.6 percent). 

Types of Mobile Banking Activity Among Households That Used Mobile Banking

Monitoring bank account balances and recent transactions were the most common mobile banking activities, used by 86.0 percent of all mobile banking users. 

Only a quarter (25.5 percent) of households that used 

mobile banking deposited a check via mobile.

Results by banking status were very similar. The most 

noticeable difference is that underbanked households 

were somewhat more likely (51.5 percent) to receive 

text message alerts than fully banked households 

(44.6 percent). 

Although the emergence of online and mobile banking facilitates the electronic delivery of banking 

services, adoption rates vary widely across subgroups. 

For most demographic segments, even those who 

bank primarily online or via mobile, bank tellers 

continue to be an important banking method. It is 

important to continue tracking these trends and the 

disparities in adoption. In particular, it is valuable to 

understand how changes in delivery channels can 

create opportunities to serve certain segments of the 

underserved population. However, changes in delivery methods can create additional challenges to serving those who heavily rely on more traditional 

channels if they are not as widely offered. Identifying 

the specific segments affected can be valuable in 

thinking about banking delivery strategies and 

balancing the availability of banking channels, 

including opportunities to effectively help certain 

segments transition.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

Figure 8.7 Primary Banking Method Used By Mobile Banking Users By Banking Status

Figure 8.8 Types Of Mobile Banking Activity By Banking Status

Telephone Banking

Bank Teller

ATM/Kiosk

Mobile Banking

Online Banking

Underbanked

Fully−Banked

0 20 40 60 80 100

2.0

3.0

7.3

7.7

14.2

18.2

21.6

32.4

54.2

38.1

Sent money to other people

Deposited a check electronically

Located the closest in−network ATM or bank branch

Text message alert

Transferred money between accounts

Bill payment

Downloaded or use bank mobile app

Checked balance or transactions 

Underbanked

Fully−Banked

0 20 40 60 80 100

25.8

29.0

26.1

24.8

31.4

38.0

44.6

51.5

56.2

54.9

60.0

59.5

68.0

69.5

85.7

88.5
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

9. Implications and Conclusion

The survey results presented in this report show a 0.5 

percentage point drop in the unbanked rate over the 

two-year period between June 2011 and June 2013. 

This change is, in part, a function of those entering 

and exiting the banking system. In the 12 months 

prior to the survey, the proportion of households that 

established a banking relationship (1.6 percent) was 

larger than the proportion that exited the banking 

system (0.7 percent). Future changes in the unbanked 

rate will continue to be influenced by the rate at 

which new households enter the banking system and 

the sustainability of established banking relationships. 

The results also demonstrated significant growth in 

the use of prepaid debit cards, particularly among 

unbanked households, who used them to facilitate 

common financial transactions. Finally, the survey 

highlighted both the potential of mobile financial 

services to increase convenience for underserved 

consumers and the continued importance of bank 

branches and other banking channels. These results 

suggest implications for policymakers, financial institutions and other stakeholders who are working to 

improve access to mainstream financial services, 

better retain customers in the banking system, and 

consider opportunities presented by mobile technology to provide convenient services.

1. Entrances and exits from the banking system are 

often associated with changes in employment 

and income. Interventions designed to help 

households maintain and renew their banking 

relationships through economic challenges may 

reduce unbanked rates over time. 

Banking status is dynamic; many households cycle in 

and out of the banking system. About half of all 

unbanked households have had a bank account in the 

past, and many of these report being likely to open 

another account in the future. Almost one in ten 

unbanked households became unbanked in the last 

12 months and these recently unbanked households 

are among the most likely to report wanting to open 

another account in the future. 

These findings suggest that economic inclusion 

efforts should focus both on bringing consumers into 

the mainstream banking system and on retaining 

current customers by better engaging and meeting 

the needs of those at risk of becoming unbanked. In 

order to do so, it is important to understand the 

circumstances that lead households to transition in 

and out of banking, as this can inform efforts to 

attract or retain these customers. 

In many cases, financial life events, such as job loss, 

significant income loss or a new job, appear to be 

important reasons why households leave or enter the 

banking system. Recently unbanked households were 

relatively more likely to have experienced adverse 

financial life events such as job loss or significant 

income loss. Because these results show that adverse 

financial events appear to be more closely associated 

with bank account closing decisions than other types 

of life events, policy makers and industry participants 

might consider ways to cushion the impact of adverse 

financial shocks on a household’s ability or desire to 

maintain a bank account. In particular, opportunities 

may exist for forbearance of fees, flexible product 

design, or direct interventions. Interventions could 

include targeted outreach or financial education for 

recently unemployed households to encourage them 

to remain in the banking system, for example. 

Recently banked households were relatively more 

likely to report a new job and to report that the new 

job contributed to the household becoming banked. 

In addition, the most frequently reported reason that 

recently banked households cited for opening an 

account was to receive direct deposits. These findings 

suggest that opportunities may exist for bringing 

newly employed consumers into the financial mainstream and helping them successfully maintain their 

accounts by educating them on the use of bank 

accounts and personal financial management. Opportunities may also exist to reach out to employers that 

do not yet offer direct deposit to help them lower 

costs and help their employees better understand the 

opportunities offered by the mainstream banking 

system.

2. Unbanked households are increasingly turning 

to general purpose reloadable prepaid cards to 

address their financial transaction needs and are 

generally obtaining them at non-bank locations. 

Opportunities may exist to meet these consumers’ needs within the banking system.

While the use of prepaid cards has increased among 

all banking status groups, the growth has been particularly fast among unbanked households. In fact, the 

proportion of unbanked households that have ever 

used prepaid cards more than doubled between 2009 

and 2013, to more than 27 percent. The vast majority 
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underaned Households

of these unbanked prepaid card users are obtaining 

their cards from a non-bank location, but are using 

the cards to perform basic financial transactions that 

otherwise could be performed using banking services. 

Almost half of unbanked households that use prepaid 

cards, like other unbanked households, are unbanked 

primarily because they perceive they “do not have 

enough money to maintain an account or meet a 

minimum balance” or because they perceive that 

“bank fees are too high or unpredictable.” Although 

these households may perceive that their financial 

circumstances prevent them from having a banking 

relationship, they still have a demonstrated need for 

financial services to assist them with basic transactions, such as receiving and making payments. In 

fact, four out of five unbanked prepaid card users use 

the cards to “pay for everyday purchases or bills” or 

to “receive payments.” Banking products such as a 

low cost, safe transaction account or a bank prepaid 

debit card that meets the specifications of the FDIC 

Safe Accounts Template could help meet the financial 

transactions needs of these consumers while building 

banking relationships. 

Almost half of unbanked households that use prepaid 

cards report being likely to open a bank account in 

the near future. In addition to the demonstrated 

demand for financial services evidenced by prepaid 

card customers, the results show that previously 

banked households are almost two and a half times 

more likely to use prepaid cards than households that 

have never been banked. Also, having previous banking experience is associated with a greater inclination 

to open an account. Consequently, these results 

suggest that significant opportunities may exist for 

unbanked prepaid card users to enter or rejoin the 

banking system. 

3. Mobile banking is a potential tool to encourage 

economic inclusion but bank branches continue 

to play an important role for many consumers, 

including those who are underbanked. 

Mobile technology appears to have promise to help 

expand economic inclusion based in part on its 

potential to enhance the convenience of banking 

transactions. The 2009 and 2011 surveys found that 

many households use transaction AFS mainly 

because of convenience. Mobile technology provides 

consumers with the ability to conveniently conduct 

transactions and view account balances anytime and 

anywhere. 

For mobile technologies to improve economic inclusion among the underserved, these consumers must 

have access to mobile phones, particularly smartphones. The 2013 survey shows that mobile phone 

access is prevalent among banked households, especially among the underbanked. In fact, underbanked 

households are more likely than fully banked households to own a smartphone and they are more likely 

than fully banked households to use mobile banking 

and to use it as their main banking channel. These 

findings suggest that underbanked consumers are 

well-positioned to take advantage of mobile banking. 

In addition, mobile technologies might also become 

useful tools for bringing unbanked households into 

the financial mainstream. While cell phone access is 

less common among unbanked households than 

among the underbanked and fully banked, it is still 

relatively high. More than two-thirds of unbanked 

households have access to mobile phones, almost half 

of which are smartphones, while fewer than half of 

unbanked households have regular Internet access. 

Innovations such as mobile account opening could 

play a role in expanding access to banking for the 

unbanked.

From the supply side, basic mobile banking offerings 

are becoming ubiquitous, and more comprehensive 

functionalities are being deployed all the time. 

However, as discussed in the 2014 FDIC report 

“Assessing The Economic Inclusion Potential of 

Mobile Financial Services”, mobile banking offerings 

are not always implemented in ways that facilitate 

economic inclusion.1 For example, mobile banking is 

often designed to work together with online banking.

To access mobile banking, users often must have an 

online-enabled bank account and use online banking. 

And, sometimes certain mobile banking features, 

such as mobile banking alerts, need to be set up or 

changed via an online banking platform. Although 

underbanked and fully banked households have regular access to the Internet at similar rates, the use of 

online banking as the main banking method is 

considerably less prevalent among the underbanked. 

This suggests that mobile banking’s interdependence 

with online banking could constrain underbanked 

households’ ability to take advantage of the full array 

of mobile banking functionalities. 

Having mobile banking function more completely as 

a standalone channel would not necessarily diminish 

1 See Susan Burhouse, Matthew Homer, Yazmin Osaki, and Michael 

Bachman, “Assessing the Economic Inclusion Potential of Mobile Financial Services,” June 30, 2014, available at https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/community/mobile/Mobile-Financial-Services.pdf.
2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbaked Household

the importance of other banking methods. On the 

contrary, other banking channels continue to be 

widely used and are important for economic inclusion and outreach efforts. In fact, the majority of both 

fully banked and underbanked households that use 

mobile banking as their primary channel also use a 

bank branch. Traditional banking channels, such as 

branches, provide functions not currently available 

through online and mobile banking. For example, 

consumers that need to purchase money orders or 

cash a check generally need to go to a bank teller. In 

addition, FDIC pilot studies have found that branch 

staff play an important role in making underserved 

consumers aware of products, providing basic financial education, and growing their banking 

relationships.2

As banking technologies continue to evolve, it is 

important to continue tracking how households 

access banking services. To this end, policymakers, 

practitioners and other stakeholders can look for 

feasible ways to make all mobile banking functionalities more accessible to underserved consumers, while 

also continuing to evaluate the role that branches 

play in providing transaction services and assess 

opportunities to grow banking relationships with 

underserved consumers through mobile and 

non-mobile channels. 

2 See Rae-Ann Miller, Susan Burhouse, Luke Reynolds and Aileen Sampson, “A Template for Success: The FDIC’s Small Dollar Loan Pilot 

Program,” FDIC Quarterly 2010, Volume 4, No. 2 and Sherrie Rhine and 

Susan Burhouse, “FDIC Model Safe Accounts Pilot: Final Report,” April 

2012.