FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and 

Financial Services

2019 FDIC Survey

Executive Summary

With Preface and Postscript

ECONOMICINCLUSION.GOV

How America Banks: 

Household Use of 

Banking and 

Financial Services

2019 FDIC Survey

Mark Kutzbach

Alicia Lloro

Jeffrey Weinstein

Karyen Chu

Center for Financial Research

Division of Insurance and Research

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

October 2020

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

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Table of Contents

Preface ......................................................................................................................................................................................................VII

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................................................1

Postscript: Potential Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic on Household Use of Banking and 

Financial Services ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

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

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Preface

How America Banks presents results from the 2019 FDIC 

Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services, 

conducted in June of that year. The results therefore 

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

report expected in 2022. 

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

report includes a postscript that draws on findings from 

the 2019 and earlier surveys to address possible consequences for the unbanked rate. The postscript also discusses potential pandemic-related challenges faced by 

households in conducting financial transactions, visiting 

bank branches, saving for unexpected expenses or emergencies, and obtaining credit.

2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 1

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Executive Summary

1

 Before 2019, the survey was named FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. The new survey name describes the content of the 

survey, which asks a nationally representative sample of U.S. households about their use of banking and financial services.

2 All differences discussed in the text are statistically significant at the 10 percent level unless noted otherwise. In other words, there is a 10 percent or 

lower probability that the difference observed in the survey is due to chance.

3

 A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes between 2017 and 2019 in the distribution of households across the householdlevel characteristics shown in Table 3.4. About half of the difference in the unbanked rate between 2017 and 2019 was associated with changes in the 

socioeconomic characteristics of households (annual income level, monthly income volatility, employment status, homeownership status, and educational 

attainment) over this period. Adding controls for the remaining demographic characteristics shown in Table 3.4 had little effect on the remainder of the 

difference in the unbanked rate.

4 For person-level characteristics, such as race, age, and education, the characteristics of the owner or renter of the home (i.e., the householder) are used to 

represent the household. For convenience, abbreviated language is used in referring to certain household characteristics. For example, the term “Hispanic 

household” refers to a household for which the householder identifies as Hispanic or Latino regardless of race, and the term “Black household” refers to a 

household for which the householder identifies as Black or African American alone and not Hispanic or Latino. The term “working-age disabled household” 

refers to a household for which the householder has a disability and is between the ages of 25 and 64. See Appendix 1 for additional details.

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

The findings presented in this report come from the FDIC 

Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services.

1

This survey has been conducted biennially since 2009 in 

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

survey was conducted in June 2019, collecting responses 

from almost 33,000 households.

This executive summary presents key results from How 

America Banks, covering bank account ownership, use of 

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

National Unbanked Rate

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

“unbanked” in 2019, meaning that no one in the 

household had a checking or savings account at a bank 

or credit union (i.e., bank). This proportion represents 

approximately 7.1 million U.S. households. Conversely, 94.6 percent of U.S. households were “banked” in 

2019, meaning that at least one member of the household had a checking or savings account. This proportion represents approximately 124.2 million U.S. 

households.

• The proportion of U.S. households that were unbanked 

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

the lowest since the survey began in 2009, as shown 

in Figure ES.1. Between 2017 and 2019, the unbanked 

rate fell by 1.1 percentage points, corresponding to 

an increase of approximately 1.5 million banked 

households.2

» About half of the decline in the unbanked rate 

between 2017 and 2019 was associated with 

improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances 

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

after these improvements were accounted for, 

the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate 

across years was statistically significant.3

• Between 2011, when the unbanked rate peaked at 

8.2 percent, and 2019, the unbanked rate fell by 

2.8 percentage points, corresponding to an increase of 

approximately 3.7 million banked households.

» About two-thirds of the decline in the unbanked 

rate between 2011 and 2019 was associated with 

improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances 

of U.S. households over this period.

Unbanked Rates by Household Characteristics and 

Geography

• Consistent with the results of previous surveys, 

in 2019 unbanked rates varied considerably across 

the U.S. population.4 For example, unbanked rates 

were higher among lower-income households, 

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

Figure ES.1 National Estimates, Household Unbanked 

Rate by Year (Percent)

7.6

8.2 7.7

7.0 6.5

5.4

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

households, working-age disabled households, and 

households with volatile income.5

• For most segments of the population, unbanked rates 

in 2019 were lower than or similar to unbanked rates 

in recent years.

» Recent declines have been particularly sharp 

for Black and Hispanic households. Specifically, 

13.8 percent of Black households were unbanked 

in 2019, down from 16.8 percent in 2017 and 

18.5 percent in 2015. Among Hispanic households, 

12.2 percent were unbanked in 2019, down from 

14.4 percent in 2017 and 16.3 percent in 2015.6

Despite the improvements in unbanked rates for 

Black and Hispanic households, unbanked rates in 

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

(2.5 percent).

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

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

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

much higher than the unbanked rate for working-age 

nondisabled households (4.5 percent), the unbanked 

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

• Regional variation in unbanked rates was similar in 

2019 to previous years, with unbanked rates highest in 

the South. The unbanked rate in the South in 2019 was 

6.2 percent, compared with 5.0 percent in the Midwest, 4.9 percent in the West, and 4.7 percent in the 

Northeast.8 However, differences in unbanked rates 

between the South and the other regions have narrowed in recent years.

5 For monthly income volatility, all households were asked whether their income over the past 12 months was about the same each month, varied somewhat 

from month to month, or varied a lot from month to month. The term “volatile income” refers to a household with income that varied somewhat or a lot 

from month to month.

6 About 70 percent of the decline in the unbanked rate for Black households and about 60 percent of the decline in the unbanked rate for Hispanic 

households between 2015 and 2019 were associated with changes in income and the other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4. After these changes 

were accounted for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate for Black households was not statistically significant, while the remainder of the 

decline in the unbanked rate for Hispanic households was statistically significant.

7 About half of the decline in the unbanked rate for working-age disabled households between 2011 and 2019 was associated with changes in income and 

the other household characteristics shown in Table 3.4 (except for monthly income volatility, which was not available for 2011). After these changes were 

accounted for, the remainder of the decline in the unbanked rate for working-age disabled households was no longer statistically significant.

8 Differences in unbanked rates between the South and each of the other three regions in 2019 were associated primarily with differences in income and 

other characteristics of U.S. households. These geographical differences were no longer statistically significant after differences in the other household 

characteristics shown in Table 3.4 were accounted for.

9 For the purposes of this report, a household is classified as urban if the household resides in a principal city of a metropolitan area, suburban if the 

household resides in a metropolitan area but not in a principal city, and rural if the household does not reside in a metropolitan area. In 2019, 29.2 percent 

of households were classified as urban, 43.6 percent as suburban, and 13.0 percent as rural. (See Table 3.4.) For the remaining 14.2 percent of households, 

the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, and rural status to maintain confidentiality, though most of these households were either 

urban or suburban.

10 The 2019 survey asked unbanked households how interested they were in having a bank account (with no specific time horizon), while the 2013–2017 

surveys asked unbanked households how likely they were to open a bank account in the next 12 months. In 2017, 58.7 percent of unbanked households 

were not at all likely, 16.3 percent were not very likely, 15.6 percent were somewhat likely, and 9.5 percent were very likely to open an account in the next 

12 months.

• Unbanked rates also varied by the metropolitan 

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

of urban households were unbanked, compared with 

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

than in 2017.

Unbanked Households: Previous Bank Account Ownership

• As discussed in previous reports, bank account 

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

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

been banked), slightly higher than in previous years 

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

Unbanked Households: Interest in Having a Bank Account

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

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

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

» These estimates are qualitatively similar to those 

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

comparisons.10

• Interest in having a bank account was higher among 

households that had previously been banked, especially those with more recent account ownership. 

Interest was also higher among Black unbanked 

households, compared with White unbanked 

households.

Unbanked Households: Reasons for Not Having a 

Bank Account 

As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked unbanked 

households about their reasons for not having a bank 

account. Patterns are similar to those reported in previous years.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 3

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

households cited “Don’t have enough money to meet 

minimum balance requirements” as a reason for not 

having an account—the most cited reason. This reason was also the most cited main reason for not having 

an account.

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

one-third of unbanked households as a reason for 

not having an account and was the second-most cited 

main reason.

11 Banked households were asked alternative versions of the two questions, having to do with their satisfaction with their primary bank and with their 

perceptions of how clearly their bank communicates account fees. Findings are discussed later in this executive summary.

Unbanked Households: Satisfaction With Most Recent 

Bank and Clarity of Banks’ Communications About 

Account Fees

To complement existing questions on reasons for not 

having a bank account, the 2019 survey included new 

questions on unbanked households’ satisfaction with 

their most recent bank and on their perceptions of how 

clearly banks in general communicate account fees.11

• Among unbanked households that had previously 

been banked, 24.3 percent were very satisfied with 

their most recent bank, 30.8 percent somewhat 

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

2019 (Percent)

4.5 13.4 17.8 64.4

11.1 20.6 20.1 48.2

7.8 17.0 18.9 56.2

Never

Banked

Previously

Banked

All

Very Interested Somewhat Interested Not Very Interested Not at All Interested

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

10.4

10.4

13.9

17.8

2.4

13.0

2.2

14.1

1.9

19.6

8.0

20.5

1.6

31.3

7.3

34.2

7.1

36.0

16.1

36.3

29.0

48.9

Did Not Select a Reason

Other Reason

Bank Hours Are Inconvenient

Bank Locations Are Inconvenient

Banks Do Not Offer Needed Products and Services

Personal Identification, Credit, or

Former Bank Account Problems

Bank Account Fees Are Too Unpredictable

Bank Account Fees Are Too High

Avoiding a Bank Gives More Privacy

Don't Trust Banks

Don't Have Enough Money to Meet

Minimum Balance Requirements

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

satisfied, 14.4 percent not very satisfied, 22.8 percent 

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

• Interest in having a bank account was higher among 

unbanked households that were very or somewhat 

satisfied with their most recent bank, compared with 

unbanked households that were not very satisfied or 

not satisfied at all with their most recent bank.

• Among unbanked households that had previously 

been banked, 17.4 percent thought banks in general 

communicated account fees very clearly, 29.4 percent somewhat clearly, 20.8 percent not very clearly, 

22.4 percent not clearly at all, and 10.0 percent did not 

know.

• Interest in having a bank account was higher among 

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

communicated account fees not very clearly or not 

clearly at all.

Banked Households: Primary Methods Used to Access 

Bank Accounts

As in previous years, the 2019 survey asked banked 

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

method they used to access their accounts in the past 

12 months: visiting a bank teller, using an ATM or bank 

kiosk, calling the bank (i.e., telephone banking), using 

a mobile phone including an app (i.e., mobile banking), 

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

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

• Use of mobile banking as a primary method of account 

access in the past 12 months continued to increase 

sharply (from 9.5 percent in 2015 and 15.6 percent in 

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

reports the finding for each primary method used to 

access a bank account by year, starting with 2015.)

• Use of online banking as a primary method of account 

access decreased substantially but remained prevalent 

12 “Don’t know” was not one of the four administered response options to the questions on satisfaction and clarity. Some households did not choose one of 

the four administered response options and instead volunteered “don’t know.” See Appendix 1 for details.

among banked households (dropping from 36.9 percent 

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

• Use of bank tellers continued to decline, though this 

decline was modest compared with the decline in use 

of online banking, and use of bank tellers remained 

prevalent (21.0 percent in 2019).

• The changes between 2015 and 2019 described above 

occurred broadly across different segments of the 

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

banking as a primary method to access their bank 

accounts.

Banked Households: Bank Branch Visits

• In 2019, 83.0 percent of banked households spoke with 

a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch 

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

down slightly from 86.0 percent in 2017.

• The frequency of bank branch visits declined somewhat between 2017 and 2019. As Figure ES.4 shows, 

the share of banked households visiting a branch 

ten or more times declined, whereas the share of 

banked households visiting a branch one to four times 

increased.

Table ES.1 Primary Method Used to Access Bank Account by Year

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

Year Bank Teller

(Percent)

ATM/Kiosk

(Percent)

Telephone 

Banking

(Percent)

Online Banking

(Percent)

Mobile Banking

(Percent)

Other 

(Percent)

2015 28.2 21.0 3.0 36.9 9.5 0.9

2017 24.3 19.9 2.9 36.0 15.6 0.7

2019 21.0 19.5 2.4 22.8 34.0 0.3

Figure ES.4 Bank Branch Visits, Among Banked 

Households, by Year (Percent)

14.0 17.0

30.8

36.3

18.2 18.3

35.4

28.4

0 Times 1 to 4

Times

5 to 9

Times

10 or More

Times

2017 2019

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

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

• Older households and households with volatile income 

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

more times.

• Bank branch visits among banked households 

varied substantially across metropolitan status (see 

Figure ES.5). In 2019, nearly nine in ten rural households visited a branch, and about four in ten rural 

households visited ten or more times.

• Branch visits were prevalent even among banked 

households that used online or mobile banking as 

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

households that used mobile banking as their primary 

method visited a branch in the past 12 months, and 

about one in five (18.8 percent) banked households 

that used mobile banking as their primary method 

visited ten or more times.

Banked Households: Satisfaction With Primary Bank and 

Clarity of Bank’s Communication About Account Fees

The 2019 survey included new questions for banked 

households, asking about their satisfaction with their 

primary bank and about their perceptions of how clearly 

their bank communicates account fees.

13 As discussed above, 55.1 percent of unbanked households that had previously been banked were very or somewhat satisfied with their most recent bank. 

This percentage is about half the percentage of banked households that were very or somewhat satisfied with their primary bank (97.3 percent).

• Almost all banked households were satisfied with 

their primary bank and thought that fees were clearly 

communicated: 97.3 percent were very or somewhat 

satisfied with their primary bank, and 92.1 percent 

thought their bank communicated account fees very 

or somewhat clearly.13

• About nine in ten banked households (91.0 percent) 

were in both groups, being satisfied (very or somewhat) with their primary bank and thinking their 

bank’s communication of account fees was clear (very 

or somewhat). Households that thought their bank 

communicated fees very or somewhat clearly were 

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

compared with households that thought their bank 

communicated fees not very clearly or not clearly at 

all (81.5 percent).

• Banked households’ satisfaction with their primary 

bank and their perceptions of how clearly their bank 

communicated account fees were consistently high 

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

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

20.8

17.0

12.3

38.2 38.2

29.3

18.4 18.6

16.7

22.6

26.2

41.6

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

Urban Suburban Rural

Note: This figure does not display bank branch visits for banked households where—to maintain confidentiality—the U.S. Census Bureau suppressed specific urban, suburban, or 

rural status (14.3 percent of banked households).
6 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

• Banked households that were not satisfied with their 

primary bank or those that thought their bank did not 

communicate account fees clearly were more likely 

to use a nonbank financial transaction service (in 

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

check cashing, or bill payment services) than were 

banked households that were satisfied or that did 

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

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

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

fees were communicated not very clearly or not clearly 

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

nonbank financial transaction services, compared 

with 14.7 percent of households that thought fees were 

communicated very or somewhat clearly.

Prepaid Cards

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

transactions, such as paying bills, withdrawing cash at 

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

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

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

2017 and 10.2 percent in 2015.15

• Differences in prepaid card use across households in 

2019 were similar to the differences in earlier years. 

Prepaid card use was higher among lower-income 

households, less-educated households, younger 

households, Black households, working-age disabled 

households, and households with volatile income. For 

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

households.

• Prepaid card use continued to be more prevalent 

among unbanked households than among banked 

households. In 2019, 27.7 percent of unbanked households used a prepaid card, compared with 7.4 percent 

of banked households.16

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

15 The estimates of prepaid card use in 2017 and 2015 reported in this subsection differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how 

nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.

16 Prepaid card use among unbanked and banked households was lower in 2019 than in 2015 and 2017; however, the decline among unbanked households 

between 2015 and 2019 was not statistically significant, while the decline among banked households was statistically significant.

17 Nonbank bill payment service providers offer money transfer services including bill payment. Customers can pay with cash at physical locations, either 

stores or kiosks, or by using online payment methods.

18 To conduct P2P payments, households typically must have a bank account, a prepaid card, or a credit card, with requirements varying across P2P payment 

service providers. 

19 The estimates of nonbank financial transaction services use in 2017 reported in this subsection differ from those published in earlier reports due to a 

difference in how nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.

Nonbank Financial Transaction Services

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

orders, check cashing, and remittances sent abroad. In 

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

by Western Union and MoneyGram) and use of a website 

or app to send or receive money inside the United States 

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

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

(P2P) payment service.18

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

5.5 percent used check cashing, and 4.9 percent used 

bill payment services. Altogether, 17.2 percent of 

households used at least one of those three services 

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

of households used international remittances, and 

31.1 percent used P2P payment services.

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

2.3 percentage points and use of check cashing fell by 

0.7 percentage points.19 Only a small portion of these 

changes were associated with changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households between 

2017 and 2019. The use of international remittances 

increased between 2017 and 2019. This increase was 

broad-based, ranging across almost all population 

segments.

• In terms of household characteristics, patterns of use 

for bill payment services were similar to the patterns 

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

and American Indian or Alaska Native households 

were more likely to use these three transaction services, as were lower-income households and households with volatile income.

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

transaction services. Use of P2P payment services was 

higher among households with income of $75,000 or 
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 7

more, households with a college degree, younger and 

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

» Use of P2P payment services requires access to the 

internet with either a smartphone or a computer. 

About one in three households (33.9 percent) that 

had smartphone access or home internet access 

made P2P payments in 2019, compared with only 

2.9 percent of households that had neither. 

» Among users of at least one among the group 

consisting of money orders, check cashing, and bill 

payment services, about a third (32.3 percent) also 

used P2P payment services, whereas fewer than 

one in five P2P users (17.9 percent) also used any of 

those other three nonbank transaction services.

• In 2019 among unbanked households, 42.3 percent 

used money orders, 31.9 percent used check cashing, 

and 14.4 percent used bill payment services; more 

than half (56.1 percent) used at least one of these 

three transaction services. In addition, 9.4 percent of 

unbanked households used international remittances, 

and 8.8 percent used P2P payment services. 

• Among banked households, 10.2 percent used money 

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

at least one of these three transaction services. In 

addition, 5.3 percent of banked households used 

international remittances, and 32.3 percent used P2P 

payment services.

• The 2019 survey included new questions on the frequency of use of nonbank transaction services other 

than P2P payment services, specifically on whether 

each nonbank transaction service was used often, 

sometimes, or rarely (see Figure ES.6). For each of the 

four nonbank transaction services, the population 

segments (e.g., those without a high school diploma) 

that more commonly used a nonbank transaction 

service (at all) also tended to use that service more 

frequently.

» In 2019, 7.3 percent of households used money 

orders sometimes or often. Of these households, 

almost nine in ten (87.1 percent) used a money 

order to pay bills.

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

4.4

2.9

4.6

1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7

1.4 1.4

2.4

1.7

Money Order Check Cashing Bill Payment Service International Remittance

Often Sometimes Rarely

Notes: This figure does not report the percentage of households that did not use the particular service in the past 12 months. For nonbank money orders, check cashing, bill 

payment services, and international remittances, 88.1, 94.5, 95.1, and 94.5 percent of households, respectively, did not use the particular service.
8 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Bank and Nonbank Credit

The 2019 survey examines household use of bank credit 

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

household is considered to have used bank credit if, in 

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

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

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

personal loan). A household is considered to have used 

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

in the past 12 months.21

• The share of households that used bank credit 

increased from 67.9 percent in 2015 to 72.5 percent 

in 2019. The share of households that used nonbank 

credit declined from 8.1 percent in 2015 and 7.5 percent 

in 2017 to 4.8 percent in 2019.22 The decline in nonbank 

credit use between 2017 and 2019 remained large and 

statistically significant even after changes in income 

and other characteristics of U.S. households were 

accounted for. The increase in bank credit use and the 

20 Certain nonbank installment loans that may be used for short-term credit needs were not captured in the 2019 survey. Credit products that are used 

primarily to finance large expenditures, such as mortgages, auto loans, and student loans, are beyond the scope of the 2019 survey. 

21 See Appendix 2 for changes in the wording of some questions across survey years.

22 The estimates of nonbank credit use in 2017 and 2015 reported in this subsection differ from those published in earlier reports due to a difference in how 

nonresponse is handled; see Appendix 1 for details.

decline in nonbank credit use occurred broadly across 

different segments of the population.

• Lower-income households, less-educated households, 

Black households, Hispanic households, American 

Indian or Alaska Native households, and working-age 

disabled households were less likely to use bank credit.

» Differences by education and income were especially pronounced. For example, in 2019, only 37.1 percent of households without a high school diploma 

used bank credit, compared with 87.5 percent of 

households with a college degree. Similarly, only 

37.0 percent of households with less than $15,000 in 

income used bank credit, compared with 89.9 percent of households with income of $75,000 or more.

» Differences by race and ethnicity were also large 

and were present at all income levels (see Figure 

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

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

of Black and Hispanic households used bank credit, 

whereas about 90 percent of White households 

did so.

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

91.3

83.8

80.6

82.2

70.7

69.2

73.0

55.1

52.8

59.4

42.1

38.3

45.0

30.3

23.5

At Least $75,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$30,000 to $50,000

$15,000 to $30,000

Less Than $15,000

Black Hispanic White

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

• Use of bank and nonbank credit also varied by the 

metropolitan status of a household’s residence. In 

2019, 64.6 percent of rural households used bank 

credit, compared with 69.2 percent of urban households and 77.3 percent of suburban households. In 

addition to being less likely to use bank credit, rural 

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

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

» When region is paired with metropolitan status, 

the rural South stands out, where only 55.4 percent 

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

How America Banks: 

Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Postscript: Potential Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic on Household Use of Banking and 

Financial Services

Overview

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

pandemic are still unfolding, and the full effects of the 

pandemic are far from known. However, early evidence 

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

job may be working fewer hours and may therefore have 

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

lost as economic conditions worsen.

As the next subsection indicates, one effect of these 

conditions is likely to be an increase in the unbanked rate 

from its level just before the pandemic.

The pandemic is also presenting particular challenges 

to households that rely on paper instruments to conduct 

financial transactions; that need or want to visit bank 

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

credit.

Potential Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the 

Unbanked Rate

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

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

at a bank or credit union (i.e., bank). The unbanked rate 

in 2019—5.4 percent—was the lowest since the survey 

began in 2009.

Changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. 

households over time have contributed to changes in the 

unbanked rate. During the Great Recession and its immediate aftermath, the unbanked rate rose from 7.6 percent 

in 2009 to 8.2 percent in 2011. Approximately one-third 

of this increase was associated with changes in the 

socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households between 

2009 and 2011. Then, from its peak in 2011 through 2019, 

the unbanked rate fell by 2.8 percentage points. Approximately two-thirds of this decline was associated with 

changes in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. 

households between 2011 and 2019.

Unbanked rates have been consistently higher 

among certain segments of the population, including 

lower-income households, unemployed households, 

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

income were unbanked, and the unbanked rate among 

unemployed households was almost four times as high 

as the unbanked rate among employed households. The 

unbanked rate in 2019 among households with income 

that varied from month to month was almost 50 percent 

higher than the unbanked rate among households with 

income that was about the same each month.

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

12 months experienced either a significant income 

loss or a job loss that contributed to their becoming 

unbanked.84

Taken together, these data suggest that the unbanked 

rate is likely to rise from its level just before the 

pandemic.85

Potential Challenges in Conducting Financial 

Transactions, Visiting Bank Branches, Saving for 

Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies, and 

Obtaining Credit

Conducting Financial Transactions

The social distancing guidelines instituted in response 

to the COVID-19 pandemic may make the use of cash, 

paper checks, and money orders (i.e., paper instruments) to conduct financial transactions particularly challenging. Reliance on paper instruments may 

make it harder for households to receive government 

relief efforts. For example, households without direct 

84 See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (October 2014), economicinclusion.gov/

surveys/2013household/documents/2013_FDIC_Unbanked_HH_Survey_Report.pdf.

85 Given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the fact that its full economic effects are not yet known, we are unable to predict the magnitude or 

persistence of any increase in the unbanked rate. Because the FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services is conducted every two years, the 

survey is not able to measure shorter-term fluctuations in unbanked rates.
2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services | 11

deposit may experience delays in receiving government 

stimulus payments.86

The 2015 and 2017 surveys, which asked households how 

they paid bills and received income in a typical month, 

showed that use of paper instruments was much more 

common among unbanked households than among 

banked households.87 For example, 66.1 percent of 

unbanked households in 2017 used cash to pay bills in 

a typical month, compared with 13.4 percent of banked 

households.88 Unbanked households received income in 

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

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

about half of the unbanked households that received 

income by paper check or money order used a nonbank 

check casher to get the funds. For banked households, 

by far the most prevalent method of receiving income 

was direct deposit into a bank account (90.8 percent 

in 2017).

Nonbank P2P payment services could facilitate some 

payments electronically that households would otherwise execute with paper instruments. In 2019, however, 

only 8.8 percent of unbanked households used a nonbank 

P2P payment service, compared with 32.3 percent of 

banked households.

Visiting Bank Branches

Social distancing guidelines may make bank branch 

visits more challenging.

Physical access to bank branches remains important 

despite the increase in the use of mobile banking and the 

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

Households may rely on bank branches not only to access 

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

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

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

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

28.4 percent visited ten or more times. 

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

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

households visited a branch, and 41.6 percent visited ten 

or more times. Because rural households have lower rates 

of home internet and smartphone access, they may find 

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

14.8 percent of rural banked households had neither 

smartphone access nor home internet access, compared 

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

suggest that for many banked households, branches and 

the range of services they provide play an important role.

Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies and 

Obtaining Credit

The economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic 

may particularly affect households without an adequate 

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

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

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

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

many households may need credit to handle unexpected 

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

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

score, which could make it harder for these households to 

obtain credit.91

86 Individuals eligible for an Economic Impact Payment authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) but without 

direct deposit information on file with the Internal Revenue Service may have received their payment by paper check or prepaid card. Some individuals 

that received a paper check may have used a nonbank check casher to get the funds. As of May 31, 2020, 120.1 million payments were made by direct deposit, 

36.6 million by paper check, and 3.6 million by prepaid card; see U.S. Government Accountability Office, COVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response 

and Recovery Efforts, Publication No. GAO-20-625 (June 25, 2020), 219, gao.gov/assets/710/707839.pdf.

87 As discussed in Appendix 2, questions on bill payment and income receipt in a typical month were not repeated in the 2019 survey.

88 Use of cash for paying bills in a typical month was also higher among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger households, Black 

households, Hispanic households, American Indian or Alaska Native households, working-age disabled households, and households with volatile income.

89 Use of mobile banking as a primary method of bank account access increased sharply, rising from 15.6 percent of banked households in 2017 to 

34.0 percent of banked households in 2019. At the same time, use of bank tellers as a primary method of account access decreased from 24.3 percent in 2017 

to 21.0 percent in 2019.

90 See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019, Featuring Supplemental Data from April 

2020 (May 2020), federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2019-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202005.pdf.

91 The 2017 survey included questions to capture the full range of credit products that are included on credit records with the nationwide credit reporting 

agencies. Households that did not have at least one of these credit products in the past 12 months were likely not to have a credit score. For the list of credit 

products, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. As discussed in Appendix 2, 

questions on many of these credit products were not repeated in the 2019 survey.
12 | 2019 FDIC Survey of Household Use of Banking and Financial Services

Certain population segments, including unbanked 

households, lower-income households, less-educated 

households, Black households, Hispanic households, 

American Indian or Alaska Native households, and 

working-age disabled households, were less likely to save 

or to have access to responsible, affordable credit. For 

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

or emergencies, and in 2017, 80.2 percent of unbanked 

households likely did not have a credit score, which could 

make it harder for these households to access responsible, affordable credit. 

FDIC-012-2020

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation