FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

2017 

FDIC National Survey of 

Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households 

ECONOMICINCLUSION.GOV 

2017 

FDIC National Survey of 

Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households 

OCTOBER 2018 

Members of the FDIC Unbanked/ 

Underbanked Survey Study Group 

Gerald Apaam 

Susan Burhouse 

Karyen Chu 

Keith Ernst 

Kathryn Fritzdixon 

Ryan Goodstein 

Alicia Lloro 

Charles Opoku 

Yazmin Osaki 

Dhruv Sharma 

Jeffrey Weinstein 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection 

ECONOMICINCLUSION.GOV 

V 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

Table of Contents 

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

2. Background and Objectives..................................................................................................................................15 

3. Banking Status of U.S. Households .....................................................................................................................17 

4. Banked Households: Types of Accounts, Methods Used to Access Accounts, and Bank Branch Visits............25 

5. Prepaid Cards .......................................................................................................................................................34 

6. Alternative Financial Services ...............................................................................................................................39 

7. Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies...............................................................................................43 

8. Credit ....................................................................................................................................................................48 

9. How Households Conduct Their Financial Transactions in a Typical Month........................................................56 

10. Measuring Economic Inclusion.............................................................................................................................61 

11. Implications and Conclusions...............................................................................................................................67 

Appendix 1. FDIC Technical Notes................................................................................................................................71 

Appendix 2. 2017 Revisions to the FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households ..................... 75 

Appendix 3. Survey Instrument..................................................................................................................................... 77 

Appendix Tables A – H (published separately) 

1 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

 

1. Executive Summary 

The FDIC is committed to expanding Americans’ access 

to safe, secure, and affordable banking services. The FDIC 

National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

is one contribution to this end. 

To assess the inclusiveness of the banking system, and in 

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

 The most recent 

survey was administered in June 2017 in partnership with the 

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

35,000 households. The survey provides estimates of the 

proportion of U.S. households that do not have an account at 

an insured institution and the proportion that have an account 

but obtained (nonbank) alternative financial services in the 

past 12 months. The survey also provides insights that may 

inform efforts to better meet the needs of these consumers 

within the banking system. 

This executive summary presents key results from the 2017 

survey and summarizes the implications of these results for 

policymakers, financial institutions, and other stakeholders 

who are working to improve access to mainstream financial 

services. 

Banking Status of U.S. Households 

• In 2017, 6.5 percent of U.S. households were “unbanked,” 

meaning that no one in the household had a checking or 

savings account. The unbanked rate in 2017 declined to 

the lowest level since the survey began in 2009. Since the 

survey was last administered in 2015, the unbanked rate 

has fallen by 0.5 percentage points. 

» Approximately 8.4 million U.S. households, made up 

of 14.1 million adults and 6.4 million children, were 

unbanked in 2017.2 

Figure ES.1 National Estimates, Household Unbanked 

Rates by Year 

7.6

8.2 7.7

7.0 6.5

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

• An additional 18.7 percent of U.S. households were “underbanked” in 2017, meaning that the household had an 

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

Specifically, a household is categorized as underbanked if 

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

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

orders, check cashing, international remittances, payday 

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

pawn shop loans, or auto title loans. 

» Approximately 24.2 million U.S. households, composed 

of 48.9 million adults and 15.4 million children, were 

underbanked in 2017. 

» The underbanked rate in 2017 was 1.2 percentage 

points lower than the 2015 estimate (19.9 percent). 

• Almost 70 percent (68.4 percent) of U.S. households were 

“fully banked” in 2017, meaning that the household had a 

bank account and did not use AFS in the past 12 months. 

The fully banked rate in 2017 was slightly higher than the 

2015 estimate (68.0 percent). 

1

Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109 – 173) calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys, “on 

efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account or other type of 

transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution [‘unbanked’] into the conventional finance system.” Section 7 further instructs the FDIC to 

consider several factors when conducting the surveys, including estimating the size and worth of the unbanked market in the United States and identifying the primary 

issues that prevent unbanked individuals from establishing conventional accounts. 

2

Adults are defined as people aged 16 and older. The estimates of 14.1 million adults and 6.4 million children may understate the total number of people in the United 

States who do not have access to a bank account because these figures do not include residents of “banked” households who do not have an account in their name 

and do not benefit from a bank account owned by another household resident. 
 

 

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

For all households, row percent 

Year Number of Households 

(1000s) 

Unbanked 

(Percent) 

Underbanked 

(Percent) 

Fully banked 

(Percent) 

Banked, underbanked 

status unknown 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

123,750 

127,538 

129,276 

7.7 

7.0 

6.5 

20.0 

19.9 

18.7 

67.0 

68.0 

68.4 

5.3 

5.0 

6.3 

Changes in Banking Status 

• The decline in the unbanked rate from 2015 to 2017 can 

be explained almost entirely by changes in household 

characteristics across survey years, particularly improvements in the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households. After accounting for these changes, the remaining 

difference in the unbanked rate from 2015 to 2017 was 

very close to zero and no longer statistically significant.3 

• Consistent with previous surveys, banking status in 2017 

varied considerably across the U.S. population. For example, 

unbanked and underbanked rates were higher among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger 

households, black and Hispanic households, working-age 

disabled households, and households with volatile income.4 

• Unbanked rates in 2017 were lower than or similar to 

unbanked rates in recent years for most segments of the 

population. 

» Recent declines in unbanked rates have been particularly sharp for younger households, black households, 

and Hispanic households.5 Despite these improvements, 

unbanked rates for these groups remained substantially 

higher than the overall unbanked rate in 2017. 

» Unbanked rates did not decline in recent years for a 

few segments of the population. For example, among 

working-age disabled households, unbanked rates 

were similar in 2013, 2015, and 2017. 

• Reflecting the decline in the underbanked rate at the national level between 2015 and 2017, underbanked rates 

also declined for many segments of the population during 

that period. 

» For example, underbanked rates decreased for 

households with less than $15,000 in income, 

households with a high school diploma (but no 

college), and working-age disabled households. 

Unbanked Households: Previous Banking Status 

and Future Banking Plans 

As discussed in previous reports, bank account ownership is 

not static and some households appear to cycle in and out of 

the banking system. 

• Nearly half of unbanked households in 2017 had a bank 

account at some point in the past, similar to previous years. 

• The proportion of unbanked households that were “very 

likely” or “somewhat likely” to open an account in the next 

12 months declined in 2017 compared with earlier years, 

while the proportion that were “not at all likely” increased. 

» One in four unbanked households in 2017 were very 

likely or somewhat likely to open an account, down 

from 37.9 percent in 2013.6 

» More than half (58.7 percent) of unbanked households in 

2017 were not at all likely to open an account, up from 

40.0 percent in 2013. This increase was fairly widespread 

among segments of the unbanked population.7 

• As in previous years, interest in opening an account in the 

next 12 months was higher among unbanked households 

that had a bank account at some point in the past, compared 

with unbanked households that never had an account. 

3

A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes from 2015 to 2017 in the distribution of households across the household characteristics listed in 

Appendix Table A.2. Changes in the socioeconomic characteristics of households (annual income level, monthly income volatility, employment status, homeownership 

status, and educational attainment) between 2015 and 2017 accounted for almost all of the difference in unbanked rates between 2015 and 2017. Adding controls for 

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

4

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

represent the household. For convenience, abbreviated language is used when referring to certain household characteristics. For example, the term “white household” 

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

refers to a household in which the householder has a disability and is aged 25 to 64. See Appendix 1 for additional details. For monthly income volatility, the 2015 and 

2017 surveys asked households 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. 

5

The decline in the unbanked rate for black households from 2013 to 2017 was no longer statistically significant after accounting for changes in the other household 

characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2 (except for monthly income volatility, which is not available for 2013). Most of the decline can be attributed to changes in 

income and the other household characteristics across survey years. 

6

Estimates of the likelihood of opening a bank account in the next 12 months for 2013 and 2015 differ from those published in earlier reports because observations 

with missing information on the likelihood of opening a bank account in the next 12 months were not dropped in earlier reports. 

7

The proportion of unbanked households that were not at all likely to open an account in the next 12 months was substantially higher in 2017 than in 2013, even after 

accounting for changes in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2 (except for monthly income volatility, which is not available for 2013) and in the 

use of prepaid cards between 2013 and 2017. 

2 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
15.7 

13.1 

10.0 

12.5 

10.6 

8.5 9.0 8.9 

7.8 7.5 

6.7 6.9 

5.6 5.8 5.9 

3.5 3.1 

3.9 

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

2013 2015 2017 

Figure ES.2 Unbanked Rates by Household Age and Year 

Figure ES.3 Unbanked Rates by Household Race and Ethnicity and Year 

20.6 

18.2 

16.9 

17.9 

16.2 

14.0 

2.2 

4.0 

2.5 

3.6 3.1 3.0 

15.0 

11.1 

12.8 

Black Hispanic Asian White Other 

2013 2015 2017 

Table ES.2 Unbanked Households’ Likelihood of Opening a Bank Account in Next 12 Months by Year 

For all unbanked households, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Unbanked 

Households 

(1000s) 

Very likely 

(Percent) 

Somewhat likely 

(Percent) 

Not very likely 

(Percent) 

Not at all likely 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

9,021 

8,358 

7,682 

14.6 

10.2 

9.5 

23.3 

18.2 

15.6 

22.1 

19.4 

16.3 

40.0 

52.2 

58.7 

3 
 

 

 

 

Reasons Households Were Unbanked 

As in previous years, the 2017 survey asked unbanked 

households about the reasons why they did not have a bank 

account. Findings are similar to those reported in previous 

years. 

• More than half (52.7 percent) of unbanked households 

cited “Do not have enough money to keep in an account” 

as a reason for not having an account, the most commonly 

cited reason. This reason was also the most commonly 

cited main reason for not having an account (34.0 percent). 

• Almost one-third (30.2 percent) of unbanked households 

cited “Don’t trust banks” as a reason for not having an 

account, the second-most commonly cited reason. This 

reason was also the second-most commonly cited main 

reason (12.6 percent). 

• As in previous years, higher proportions of unbanked 

households that previously had an account cited “Bank 

account fees are too high” (29.9 percent) or “Bank 

account fees are unpredictable” (24.9 percent) in 2017, 

compared with unbanked households that never had an 

account (21.1 and 17.0 percent, respectively). 

• Higher proportions of unbanked households that were not 

at all likely or not very likely to open a bank account in the 

next 12 months cited “Don’t trust banks” (36.2 and 31.5 

percent, respectively) in 2017, compared with unbanked 

households that were somewhat likely or very likely to 

open a bank account in the next 12 months (24.7 and 21.0 

percent, respectively). 

Types of Accounts Owned by Banked Households 

• Savings and checking account ownership among banked 

households in 2017 was similar to previous years. 

» Almost all banked households had a checking account 

(98.2 percent), while roughly three in four (78.0 percent) 

had a savings account. 

» Savings account ownership rates in 2017 varied widely 

across the population. For example, savings account 

ownership rates were lower among lower-income 

households, less-educated households, Hispanic 

households, working-age disabled households, and 

households in rural areas. 

Figure ES.4 Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account, Unbanked Households, 2017 (Percent) 

12.3 

14.9 

2.1 

9.2 

4.1 

9.4 

1.6 

13.1 

4.9 

14.0 

1.3 

20.2 

8.6 

24.7 

3.0 

28.2 

12.6 

30.2 

34.0 

52.7 

Other reason 

Inconvenient locations 

Inconvenient hours 

Banks do not offer needed products or services 

ID, credit, or former bank account problems 

Account fees unpredictable 

Account fees too high 

Avoiding bank gives more privacy 

Don't trust banks 

Do not have enough money to keep in account 

Cited Main 

4 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Methods Banked Households Used to Access Their 

Accounts 

Use of mobile banking to access a bank account continued 

to increase sharply, while use of bank tellers declined. Use of 

bank tellers, however, remained quite prevalent, particularly 

among segments of the population that had higher unbanked 

and underbanked rates. 

• The proportion of banked households that used mobile 

banking to access their accounts in the past 12 months increased from 23.2 percent in 2013 to 31.9 percent in 2015 

and 40.4 percent in 2017. The share of banked households that used mobile banking as their primary method of 

account access also increased sharply from 2013 to 2017, 

both overall and across household characteristics. 

• In 2017, almost three in four (73.6 percent) banked households used bank tellers to access their accounts in the 

past 12 months, a higher proportion than any other method asked about in the survey. However, use of bank tellers 

declined modestly between 2013 and 2017. The share of 

banked households that used bank tellers as their primary 

method of account access decreased substantially, both 

overall and across household characteristics; however, 

this method is still the second-most prevalent primary 

method overall after online banking. 

» Use of bank tellers as the primary means of account 

access remained quite prevalent among certain 

segments of the population, including lower-income 

households, less-educated households, older households, and households in rural areas. These groups 

were also disproportionately more likely to access their 

accounts using only bank tellers. 

Bank Branch Visits Among Banked Households 

The 2017 survey included new questions that asked all 

households whether they spoke with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch (i.e., visited a bank branch) 

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

2013, the survey has measured the share of households that 

accessed their account using bank tellers. However, some 

households may rely on bank branches for activities other 

than accessing an account, such as resolving a problem or 

asking about products or services, and the questions on account access methods provide only an imprecise measure of 

the intensity of branch use. The goal of the new questions is 

to provide a more complete picture of household use of bank 

branches. 

• Overall, 86.0 percent of banked households visited a bank 

branch in the past 12 months, and 35.4 percent visited ten 

or more times.8 

• Branch visits were prevalent even among banked households that used online or mobile banking as their primary 

method of account access. For example, 81.0 percent of 

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

nearly one-quarter (23.0 percent) visited ten or more times. 

• Patterns of bank branch visits among banked households 

varied by household characteristics. For example, older 

households, households in rural areas, and households 

with volatile income were more likely to visit a branch or to 

have visited ten or more times. Black, Hispanic, and Asian 

households were less likely to visit a branch or to have 

visited ten or more times. 

Table ES.3 All Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts by Year 

For all banked households that accessed their account in the past 12 months, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 

Bank teller 

(Percent) 

ATM/Kiosk 

(Percent) 

Telephone 

banking 

(Percent) 

Online 

banking 

(Percent) 

Mobile 

banking 

(Percent) 

Other 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

108,295 

113,315 

115,040 

78.8 

75.5 

73.6 

69.6 

69.8 

71.6 

26.1 

27.0 

28.9 

55.1 

60.4 

63.0 

23.2 

31.9 

40.4 

1.0 

1.1 

0.9 

Note: Row percentages sum to more than 100 because households were asked to select all bank account access methods used. 

Table ES.4 Primary Method Used to Access Bank Accounts by Year 

For all banked households that accessed their account in the past 12 months, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 

Bank teller 

(Percent) 

ATM/Kiosk 

(Percent) 

Telephone 

banking 

(Percent) 

Online 

banking 

(Percent) 

Mobile 

banking 

(Percent) 

Other 

(Percent) 

2013 108,295 32.2 24.4 3.3 32.9 5.7 0.8 

2015 113,315 28.2 21.0 3.0 36.9 9.5 0.9 

2017 115,040 24.3 19.9 2.9 36.0 15.6 0.7 

8

Among unbanked households, 14.7 percent visited a bank branch in the past 12 months: 7.7 percent visited a branch one to four times, 2.2 percent visited five to nine 

times, and 4.7 percent visited ten or more times. Approximately two-thirds of unbanked households that visited a branch did not have a bank account at any time in 

the past 12 months. 

5 
 

Figure ES.5 Bank Branch Visits in Past 12 Months Among 

Banked Households, 2017 (Percent) 

14.0 

30.8 

18.2 

35.4 

0 times 1 to 4 

times 

5 to 9 

times 

10 or more 

times 

Note: Households that visited a branch but with unknown frequency 

(1.6 percent of banked households) are not shown. 

Mobile Activities Among Banked Households 

The 2017 survey included a series of questions about the 

ways households used a mobile phone for banking activities 

in the past 12 months. Most of these activities were also 

asked about in the 2013 survey. 

• Use of a mobile phone to check email from a bank about an 

account was the most common activity in 2017, performed 

by 44.1 percent of banked households. 

» Other common activities, performed by approximately 

one-third of banked households in 2017, were using a 

bank’s mobile website or bank’s mobile app to check 

a bank account balance or recent transactions, and 

receiving a mobile text alert or push notification from a 

bank about an account. 

» The remaining mobile activities asked about in the survey were less common, but the proportion of banked 

households that performed each of these activities 

doubled or more than doubled from 2013 to 2017. 

• Underbanked households were more likely to perform 

each mobile activity than fully banked households. Use 

of each mobile activity was also more common among 

higher-income households, more-educated households, 

younger households, working-age nondisabled households, and households with volatile income. 

Figure ES.6 Mobile Activities Among Banked Households by Year (Percent) 

Note: Estimates of the proportion of banked households that used a mobile phone to check email from a bank about an account or that received a mobile text alert or 

13.7 

5.9 

18.0 

5.6 

25.4 

12.2 

26.5 

13.2 

34.0 

35.4 

19.0 

44.1 

Sent money to others 

Deposited a check electronically 

Transferred money between accounts 

Bill payment 

Text message alert 

Checked balance or transactions 

Checked email about an account 

2013 2017 

push notification from a bank about an account are not available for 2013. 

6 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Prepaid Cards 

Some consumers use general purpose reloadable prepaid 

cards to address their financial transactions 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. Consumers can obtain prepaid 

cards from sources such as a bank location or bank’s website, a nonbank store or website, a government agency, or an 

employer. Many, although not all, such cards store funds in 

accounts eligible for deposit insurance.9 

• Between 2015 and 2017, the proportion of households 

that used prepaid cards decreased from 9.8 percent to 9.2 

percent. This decline can be attributed primarily to changes in income and other characteristics of U.S. households 

between 2015 and 2017. However, the proportion of 

households that used prepaid cards in 2017 remained 

higher than in 2013 (7.9 percent). 

• As in previous years, prepaid card use in 2017 was higher 

among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger households, black households, working-age disabled households, and households with volatile 

income. 

• Use of prepaid cards in 2017 was most prevalent among 

unbanked households, as in previous years. 

Figure ES.7 Prepaid Card Use in Past 12 Months by 

22.3 

27.1 26.9 

13.1 15.4 14.5 

5.3 6.9 6.7 

Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

2013 2015 2017 

Banking Status and Year (Percent) 

» Unbanked households that used prepaid cards were 

more likely to have had a bank account at some point 

in the past: 62.7 percent of unbanked households that 

used prepaid cards in 2017 had a bank account in the 

past, compared with 41.9 percent of unbanked households that did not use prepaid cards. 

• Consistent with previous survey results, households that 

used prepaid cards in 2017 obtained them from a variety 

of sources. The most common source in 2017 was a store 

or website that is not a bank, followed by a government 

agency, family or friends, and a bank location or a bank’s 

website. 

Figure ES.8 Sources of Prepaid Cards for Households That Used Prepaid Cards in Past 12 Months by Year (Percent) 

0.6 

1.3 

8.4 

6.8 

9.3 

9.2 

13.3 

17.3 

15.0 

14.2 

15.0 

14.8 

45.4 

42.6 

Unknown 

Other 

Employer payroll card 

Bank location or bank's website 

Family or friends 

Government agency 

Store or website that is not a bank 

2015 2017 

Note: Bars sum to more than 100 percent because households with multiple prepaid cards were asked to select all sources of their cards. 

9

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

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

7 
 

 

Alternative Financial Services 

• In 2017, 22.1 percent of households used some type of 

AFS in the past 12 months, down from 24.0 percent in 

2015 and 24.9 percent in 2013.10 

» Use of transaction AFS remained more common than 

use of credit AFS.11 

• Consistent with past survey results, AFS use differed 

across households. AFS use in 2017 was more common 

among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger households, black and Hispanic households, working-age disabled households, and households 

with volatile income. 

» Declines in AFS use over time were fairly widespread 

across segments of the population. 

• AFS use continued to be much higher among unbanked 

households than banked households. 

» The proportion of unbanked households that used 

AFS, however, decreased substantially from 2013 

to 2017. This decrease is attributable to declines in 

the use of both transaction and credit AFS over this 

period. 

Figure ES.9 Alternative Financial Services Use in Past 12 

Months by Year, Unbanked Households (Percent) 

63.2 

57.3 

51.3 

60.5 

54.1 

48.0 

16.7 16.5 12.3 

Any AFS Transaction AFS Credit AFS 

2013 2015 2017 

Figure ES.10 Alternative Financial Services Use in Past 12 

Months by Year, Banked Households (Percent) 

21.7 21.4 20.0 18.6 17.6 16.3 

6.2 7.0 6.5 

Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies 

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

home or car repairs. The absence of savings can sometimes 

be a barrier to financial stability and resilience, particularly for 

consumers with uneven or low incomes. 

• Overall, 57.8 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in 2017; that is, they set 

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

unexpected expenses or emergencies, even if the funds 

were later spent. The increase in the savings rate since 

2015 (56.3 percent) can be attributed primarily to changes 

in income and other characteristics of U.S. households 

between 2015 and 2017. 

» As in 2015, rates of saving for unexpected expenses 

or emergencies in 2017 were lower among certain 

segments of the population, including lower-income 

households, less-educated households, older households, black and Hispanic households, and working-age disabled households. 

» The savings rate increased substantially among 

Hispanic households from 42.5 percent in 2015 to 

48.2 percent in 2017. Moreover, savings rates among 

younger households increased more than savings 

rates among older households. 

» Unbanked households continued to save for unexpected expenses or emergencies at a much lower rate than 

underbanked and fully banked households. 

Figure ES.11 Rates of Saving for Unexpected Expenses or 

Emergencies by Banking Status and Year 

20.2 17.4 

55.2 56.3 60.0 61.6 

Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

2015 2017 

Any AFS Transaction AFS Credit AFS 

2013 2015 2017 

10Unless noted otherwise, all estimates of AFS use are based on the 12 months before the survey. 

11For the purposes of this report, transaction AFS include the following nonbank products and services: money orders, check cashing, and international remittances. 

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

pawn shop loans, and auto title loans. 

8 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Figure ES.12 Selected Savings Methods for Households That Saved by Banking Status, 2017 (Percent) 

Note: Bars may sum to more than 100 percent because households were asked to select all savings methods used. 

71.6 

23.7 

10.5 

0.3 2.0 2.2 

66.8 

10.1 

65.1 

23.9 

16.3 

0.4 

75.0 

24.1 

7.7 

0.1 

All Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

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

• Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in 2017, savings and checking 

accounts were the most used savings methods: more 

than four in five (85.5 percent) kept savings in one of these 

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

saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or 

friends. 

» As in 2015, the use of formal (e.g., savings or checking accounts) and informal (e.g., in the home, or with 

family or friends) savings methods varied by household 

characteristics in 2017. 

» Unbanked households generally saved using informal methods, while underbanked and fully banked 

households generally saved using formal methods. 

Unbanked households that saved primarily kept 

savings in the home, or with family or friends, while 

underbanked and fully banked households that saved 

primarily used savings accounts. 

Credit 

Building on the 2015 survey, which introduced questions 

about small-dollar bank credit, the 2017 survey included new 

questions to capture the full range of credit products that 

are likely reported to credit bureaus (i.e., mainstream credit). 

Specifically, the 2015 survey asked households whether, 

in the past 12 months, they had a credit card from Visa, 

MasterCard, American Express, or Discover (i.e., credit card) 

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

personal loan). Additional questions in the 2017 survey asked 

households whether, in the past 12 months, they had a store 

credit card; an auto loan; a student loan; a mortgage, home 

equity loan, or home equity line of credit (HELOC); or other 

personal loans or lines of credit from a company other than 

a bank (i.e., other mainstream nonbank).12 A household is 

considered to have used mainstream credit if it used any of 

the above credit products in the past 12 months. 

• Credit cards were the most common type of mainstream 

credit (68.7 percent of households had a credit card from 

Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover, and 

41.6 percent had a store credit card), followed by mortgages, home equity loans, or HELOCs; and auto loans. 

» Use of each mainstream credit product was much 

lower among unbanked households, relative to underbanked and fully banked households. For example, 

only 7.2 percent of unbanked households had a credit 

card, compared with 60.0 percent of underbanked 

households and 76.3 percent of fully banked households. 

» Use of mainstream credit products also varied widely 

across socioeconomic and demographic groups. In 

12Other mainstream nonbank credit includes finance company loans and purchase loans or lines of credit from retailers. This category does not include credit AFS. 

9 
 

general, lower-income households, less-educated 

households, the youngest and oldest households, 

black and Hispanic households, and working-age 

disabled households were less likely to use most 

mainstream credit products. 

• Households that did not have mainstream credit in the 

past 12 months likely did not have a credit score, which 

could make it more difficult to obtain mainstream credit 

should a credit need arise.13 

» One in five (19.7 percent) households in 2017 had no 

mainstream credit in the past 12 months. 

» Differences in the share of households with no 

mainstream credit by banking status were striking. 

Four in five (80.2 percent) unbanked households had 

no mainstream credit, compared with 21.9 percent 

of underbanked households and 14.1 percent of fully 

banked households. 

» The share of households with no mainstream credit 

also varied substantially across socioeconomic and 

demographic groups. Lower-income households, 

less-educated households, black and Hispanic households, working-age disabled households, and foreign-born, noncitizen households were more likely not 

to have mainstream credit. 

» Differences by race and ethnicity were substantial: 

36.0 percent of black households and 31.5 percent 

of Hispanic households had no mainstream credit, 

compared with 14.4 percent of white households. At 

all income levels, black and Hispanic households were 

more likely not to have mainstream credit. Racial and 

ethnic differences in bank account ownership and socioeconomic and demographic characteristics beyond 

income can account for some, but not all, of the racial 

and ethnic differences in the likelihood of not having 

mainstream credit. 

• Two reasons why households may not have mainstream 

credit are that they are not interested in having credit or 

that they do not appear creditworthy. For the purposes 

of this report, we consider a household to have shown 

interest in having credit if, in the past 12 months, the 

household applied for a credit card or bank personal loan, 

thought about applying for a credit card or bank personal 

loan but did not because it thought it might be turned 

down (i.e., felt discouraged about applying), or use credit 

AFS.14 

» Approximately one in six (15.8 percent) households 

with no mainstream credit in 2017 showed interest in 

having credit. 

» Staying current on bills is one potential indicator of 

creditworthiness. About three in four (76.3 percent) 

households with no mainstream credit stayed current 

on bills in the past 12 months. Among households with 

no mainstream credit that showed interest in having 

credit, roughly half (46.7 percent) stayed current on 

bills. While staying current on bills is an imperfect measure of creditworthiness, it nevertheless provides some 

insight into these households’ financial situation. 

• Households may use certain credit products, including 

credit cards, bank personal loans, and credit AFS, to meet 

their small-dollar credit needs. Some households may 

have small-dollar credit needs that are not fully met by 

mainstream financial institutions. As in the 2015 report, 

we classify a household as having unmet demand for 

mainstream small-dollar credit if, in the past 12 months, 

the household applied for and was denied a credit card 

or bank personal loan, felt discouraged about applying, or 

used credit AFS. 

» Applying this convention, 12.9 percent of households 

had unmet demand for mainstream small-dollar credit 

in 2017, compared with 13.7 percent in 2015. The 

decline in the share of households with unmet demand 

from 2015 to 2017 is consistent with the declines in the 

shares of households that used credit AFS or that felt 

discouraged about applying for a credit card or bank 

personal loan. 

» Among households with unmet demand, 57.2 percent 

stayed current on bills in 2017, up slightly from 52.5 

percent in 2015. 

13Households without a credit score may be “credit invisible,” meaning that no one in the household has a record at one of the credit bureaus. Alternatively, a 

household member may have a record at one of the credit bureaus but not have sufficient credit history to be scored. At least one active trade line in the past six 

months is generally required to generate a credit score. 

14This definition is an approximation and likely does not capture all households that have shown interest in having credit. For example, households may have applied 

for or have felt discouraged about applying for other credit products, such as auto loans or student loans. 

10 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Figure ES.13 Use of Mainstream Credit Products, 2017 (Percent) 

19.7 

2.1 

6.9 

16.6 

32.3 

33.8 

41.6 

68.7 

No mainstream credit 

Other mainstream nonbank 

Bank personal loan 

Student loan 

Auto loan 

Mortgage, home equity loan, or HELOC 

Store credit card 

Credit card 

Figure ES.14 No Mainstream Credit by Household Race and Ethnicity and Income Level, 2017 (Percent) 

3.5 

6.8 

9.5 

8.5 

18.5 

18.9 

16.2 

28.5 

27.9 

29.1 

47.9 

48.7 

48.2 

63.4 

67.8 

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: To simplify the fgure, estimates for Asian households and for households of other races and ethnicities are not shown. 

11 
 

Table ES.5 Methods Used to Pay Bills and Receive Income in a Typical Month by Banking Status, 2017 

For all households that paid bills and received income in a typical month, column percent 

All Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

A. Paying bills (Percent) 

Electronic payment from bank 68.4 2.5 67.2 73.0 

Personal check 61.3 1.2 52.0 67.8 

Debit card 47.3 3.1 63.1 45.9 

Credit card 24.8 8.4 25.0 25.8 

Bank money order 5.7 13.0 11.8 3.5 

Cash 15.9 66.1 26.2 9.8 

Nonbank money order 6.9 39.1 24.2 0.0 

Prepaid card 2.3 22.1 4.0 0.5 

Other 1.2 8.0 1.3 0.7 

Did not select a method 0.5 3.3 0.3 0.4 

Any bank method 93.8 22.7 94.0 98.4 

Only bank methods 78.2 6.2 56.6 88.8 

B. Receiving income (Percent) 

Direct deposit into bank account 86.7 5.6 86.6 92.0 

Paper check or money order 27.6 45.4 30.8 25.6 

Cash 7.9 26.5 10.5 6.0 

Direct deposit onto prepaid card 3.4 23.3 5.0 1.6 

Other 1.8 10.6 1.9 1.2 

Nonbank check casher 1.9 23.7 3.8 0.0 

Did not select a method 1.6 10.5 1.3 1.1 

Any bank method 93.2 5.6 95.3 98.2 

Only bank methods 84.1 2.6 80.0 90.5 

How Households Conduct Their Financial 

Transactions in a Typical Month 

To learn more about the extent to which households use bank 

and other methods to meet their financial transactions needs, 

the 2017 survey asked about the ways households pay bills 

and receive income in a typical month. 

• From 2015 to 2017, use of paper instruments to handle 

these financial transactions declined somewhat, while use 

of electronic methods increased. 

» Although personal checks remained the second-most 

prevalent method of paying bills, after electronic payments from a bank account, the proportion of households that used personal checks decreased from 2015 

to 2017. Over the same period, the proportions that 

used electronic payments from a bank account, debit 

cards, or credit cards increased. 

» Likewise, the proportion of households that received 

income by paper check or money order decreased 

from 2015 to 2017, while the proportion that received 

income through direct deposit into a bank account 

increased. 

• As in 2015, unbanked households in 2017 paid bills and 

received income primarily using methods outside of the 

banking system. 

» Approximately two-thirds paid bills using cash in 2017, 

the most prevalent method. Nonbank money orders and 

prepaid cards were the next two most prevalent methods 

of paying bills. 

» Unbanked households also received income in a variety of ways, but the most prevalent method was paper 

check or money order, followed by cash and direct 

deposit onto a prepaid card. 

• Underbanked households, on the other hand, used banks 

extensively to handle their financial transactions. The 

key difference between underbanked and fully banked 

households is that, in addition to using bank methods, 

underbanked households also widely used other methods 

to pay bills. 

12 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
» Electronic payment from a bank account was the 

most prevalent method of paying bills among both 

underbanked and fully banked households in 2017. 

Relative to the fully banked, use of personal checks 

was lower among underbanked households and 

use of debit cards was higher. Direct deposit into a 

bank account was by far the most prevalent method 

of receiving income, both for underbanked and fully 

banked households. 

» Approximately one in four underbanked households 

used cash to pay bills in a typical month, and a similar 

share used nonbank money orders. 

Measuring Economic Inclusion 

A primary goal of the FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and 

Underbanked Households is to assess the inclusiveness of 

the U.S. banking system. Specifically, the survey is used to 

estimate the proportion of households that do not have an 

account at a federally insured depository institution (i.e., the 

unbanked rate) and the proportion that have an account but 

go outside of the banking system to meet their financial needs 

(i.e., the underbanked rate). As consumer financial product 

markets evolve and new products mature, measurement of 

the unbanked and underbanked may require updating to 

reflect such changes and to better assess the inclusiveness 

of the banking system. 

• In this report and since the survey was first conducted in 

2009, a household is categorized as unbanked if no one in 

the household has a checking or savings account. General 

purpose reloadable prepaid cards that were obtained from 

banks may offer many of the same features as checking 

accounts as well as a relationship with a retail banking 

institution. 

» As a result, unbanked households that use prepaid 

cards obtained from banks could be considered 

banked. If they were, the unbanked rate in 2017 

would fall slightly from 6.5 percent to 6.4 percent. 

• In this report and since 2013, a household is classified as 

underbanked if it has a checking or savings account and 

used one of the following products or services from an 

AFS provider in the past 12 months: money orders, check 

cashing, international remittances, payday loans, refund 

anticipation loans, rent-to-own services, pawn shop loans, 

or auto title loans. 

» This underbanked definition does not incorporate 

intensity of AFS use: some underbanked households 

may routinely use AFS, while others may do so only 

sporadically. 

» It also considers a wide range of AFS, including transaction and credit products and services. 

• As a result, households categorized as underbanked 

in this report are a fairly broad group, with a variety of 

experiences and levels of engagement with the banking 

system. 

» In 2017, approximately half (48.6 percent) of underbanked households used only bank methods to pay 

bills and receive income in a typical month, which we 

denote as underbanked group 1.15 The remaining 51.4 

percent of underbanked households did not exclusively use bank methods to pay bills and receive income 

in a typical month, which we denote as underbanked 

group 2. 

» Households in underbanked group 1 were quite 

similar to the fully banked in their socioeconomic and 

demographic characteristics, savings activity, and 

use of mainstream credit products. Compared with 

households in underbanked group 1 and with the fully 

banked, households in underbanked group 2 had 

lower income and educational attainment; were more 

likely to be young, black, Hispanic, or working-age 

disabled; and were more likely to have volatile income. 

» Use of mobile banking as the primary method of bank 

account access was similar across the two underbanked groups. In contrast, use of bank tellers was 

more prevalent and use of online banking less prevalent among households in underbanked group 2. 

» Rates of savings for unexpected expenses or emergencies, use of savings or checking accounts for 

keeping savings, and use of most mainstream credit products were also lower among households in 

underbanked group 2, compared with households in 

underbanked group 1 and with the fully banked. 

» Some of the characteristics and behaviors of households in underbanked group 2 were similar to the 

characteristics and behaviors of the unbanked, including the share with volatile income, the use of cash to 

pay bills or receive income in a typical month, and the 

proportion that fell behind on bills. 

» Overall, this analysis suggests that it is important to 

consider intensity of transaction AFS use in measuring 

the underbanked. If intensity of transaction AFS use 

were considered in the classification of underbanked 

households, fewer households in underbanked group 1 

may be classified as underbanked. 

15Households in underbanked group 1 were classified as underbanked because either they used credit AFS in the past 12 months, or they used transaction AFS in the 

past 12 months but not to pay bills or receive income in a typical month. 

13 
 

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. New underwriting technologies could help expand access 

to small-dollar credit for banked consumers, including 

consumers with little or no credit history. The vast majority 

of the 13 percent of households with unmet demand for 

mainstream small-dollar credit are banked, and almost all 

receive income and pay bills using their bank accounts. 

But few of these households applied for a credit card 

or bank personal loan. Account balances and transactions may provide information for banks to underwrite 

small-dollar credit to some of these households. 

2. About one in five households likely have little or no credit 

history. The vast majority of these households are banked 

and may not seek credit until a need arises. Helping these 

households establish and build a credit history may particularly benefit black households, Hispanic households, 

and households headed by a working-age individual with 

a disability. All of these households are disproportionately 

less likely to have mainstream credit. 

3. Mobile banking holds real promise for deepening the 

connection between underbanked households and their 

banks while increasing the safety and convenience of 

bill payments. A large share of underbanked households 

pays bills in a typical month with cash or nonbank money 

orders. More than two in five of these households already 

use mobile banking to access their bank accounts. Increased use of mobile banking activities by these households may enable them to conduct a greater share of their 

basic financial transactions within the banking system. 

4. Physical access to bank branches remains important 

even as use of mobile banking and online banking has 

increased. In 2017, the great majority of banked households visited a bank branch in the past 12 months, and 

more than one-third visited ten or more times. In addition, 

almost one in six unbanked households visited a bank 

branch in the past 12 months. These findings suggest that 

branches continue to play an important role for banked 

households and that opportunities may exist for branch 

staff to inform unbanked households about products and 

services that can help meet their financial needs. 

5. Unbanked rates for some segments of the population 

have declined as economic conditions improved between 

2011 and 2017. Still, unbanked rates for these groups, 

including black and Hispanic households, remain substantially above the national average. At the same time, 

unbanked rates for other population segments, such as 

working-age disabled households, have remained high 

and stayed fairly constant between 2011 and 2017. Understanding the evolution of unbanked rates for different 

population segments and adopting targeted strategies 

may help sustain increases in bank account ownership in 

future economic downturns and increase access for different population segments with high unbanked rates. 

14 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
15 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

2. Background and Objectives 

Background 

When households open an account at a federally insured 

depository institution, they establish a mainstream banking 

relationship that provides them the opportunity to deposit 

funds securely, conduct basic financial transactions, and 

accumulate savings. 

Despite these benefits, many households—referred to in this 

report as “unbanked”—do not have an account at an insured institution. Other households have an account but also 

obtained financial products or services from an alternative 

financial services (AFS) provider in the past 12 months. These 

households are referred to as “underbanked” in this report. 

Unbanked and underbanked households present an opportunity for banks to expand access to and utilization of their 

products and services. 

The FDIC is committed to expanding economic inclusion 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 is 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. It also seeks to offer insights that 

will inform efforts to better meet the needs of these groups. 

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 the Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS). 

The first FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households was conducted in January 2009, and subsequent 

surveys were conducted in June 2011, June 2013, June 2015, 

and June 2017. Results from these surveys are available at 

http://www.economicinclusion.gov. 

This report presents the results of the 2017 FDIC National 

Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. This 

survey was conducted in June 2017 and collected responses 

from 35,217 households. See Appendix 1 (FDIC Technical 

Notes) for additional details. 

Where appropriate, this report discusses trends in survey 

results over time. In certain cases, results are not comparable 

across years because of changes in the survey instrument. 

For example, underbanked rates in 2013, 2015, and 2017 

are not comparable to the 2009 or 2011 estimates because 

of differences in the types of AFS included in the survey that 

were used to categorize households as underbanked. 

The results of this survey complement other FDIC efforts 

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 FDIC encourages researchers, policymakers, consumer 

and community groups, and financial institutions to use the 

publicly available data to improve understanding of the issues 

and challenges unbanked and underbanked households face 

when deciding how and where to conduct financial transactions. The information provided in this report, as well as future 

analyses produced with the publicly available data, will contribute to efforts to create sustainable banking opportunities 

for a broad set of consumers. 

What’s New 

A number of changes were made to the 2017 survey 

instrument to provide additional information about the 

characteristics of unbanked and underbanked households. 

The details of these changes, summarized below, are 

provided in Appendix 2. 

The notable additions to the 2017 survey instrument fall into 

three main areas. 
 

First, to supplement existing questions on use of bank tellers 

to access a bank account, the survey included new questions 

that asked all households whether they spoke with a teller 

or other employee in person at a bank branch in the past 12 

months and, if so, how many times. The goal of these questions 

is to provide a more complete picture of household use of bank 

branches. Banked households may rely on bank branches for 

activities other than accessing an account, such as resolving 

a problem or asking about products or services. Unbanked 

households may visit a bank branch to learn about products or 

services or to use those provided to non-account holders. 

Second, to supplement existing questions on use of mobile 

banking, the survey included a series of questions that asked 

households about the ways they used a mobile phone in the 

past 12 months for banking activities, such as paying bills, 

sending money to others, and depositing a check. Most of 

these questions were also asked in the 2013 survey. 

Finally, to approximate the share of households that do not 

have a credit score, the survey added questions to capture 

the full range of credit products that are likely reported to the 

major credit bureaus (i.e., mainstream credit). As in 2015, 

households were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they 

had a credit card from Visa, MasterCard, American Express, 

or Discover or whether they had a personal loan or line of 

credit from a bank. New questions asked households whether, in the past 12 months, they had a store credit card; an auto 

loan; a student loan; a mortgage, home equity loan, or home 

equity line of credit; or other personal loans or lines of credit 

from a company other than a bank. 

16 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
17 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

3. Banking Status of U.S. Households 

2017 National Estimates 

An estimated 6.5 percent of U.S. households were “unbanked” in 2017, meaning that no one in the household had a 

checking or savings account (see Figure 3.1). This proportion 

represents approximately 8.4 million U.S. households composed of 14.1 million adults and 6.4 million children.16 

An additional 18.7 percent of U.S. households (24.2 million) 

were “underbanked” in 2017, meaning that the household had 

a checking or savings account and used one of the following 

products or services from an alternative financial services 

(AFS) provider in the past 12 months: money orders, check 

cashing, international remittances, payday loans, refund anticipation loans, rent-to-own services, pawn shop loans, or auto 

title loans. These underbanked households were made up of 

48.9 million adults and 15.4 million children. 

Most U.S. households (68.4 percent) were “fully banked” in 

2017, meaning that the household had a bank account and 

did not use AFS in the past 12 months. The remaining 6.3 

percent of U.S. households had a bank account, but information on their use of AFS was insufficient to categorize 

the household as either underbanked or fully banked (i.e., 

banked, underbanked status unknown). 

Figure 3.1 Banking Status of U.S. Households, 2017 

(Percent) 

Unbanked 

6.5 

Underbanked 

18.7 

Banked, 

underbanked 

status unknown 

6.3 Fully

banked 

68.4 

Changes in Banking Status 

The proportion of U.S. households that were unbanked (i.e., 

the unbanked rate) in 2017—6.5 percent—declined to the 

lowest level since the survey began in 2009, as shown in 

Figure 3.2. Since the survey was last administered in 2015, 

the unbanked rate has fallen by 0.5 percentage points.17 

The decline in the unbanked rate from 2015 to 2017 can be 

explained almost entirely by changes in household characteristics across survey years, particularly improvements in 

the socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households. After 

accounting for these changes, the remaining difference in the 

unbanked rate from 2015 to 2017 was very close to zero and 

no longer statistically significant.18 

Figure 3.2 National Estimates, Household Unbanked 

Rates by Year 

7.6

8.2 7.7

7.0 6.5

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

The proportion of households that were underbanked (i.e., 

the underbanked rate) fell from 19.9 percent in 2015 to 18.7 

percent in 2017, as shown in Table 3.1. This decline was 

attributable in part to changes in household characteristics 

between 2015 and 2017, particularly improvements in the 

socioeconomic circumstances of U.S. households. Even 

after accounting for these changes, the remaining decline 

in the underbanked rate from 2015 to 2017 was statistically 

significant. 

16Adults are defined as people aged 16 and older. The estimates of 14.1 million adults and 6.4 million children may understate the total number of people in the United 

States who do not have access to a bank account because these figures do not include residents of “banked” households who do not have an account in their name 

and do not benefit from a bank account owned by another household resident. 

17All differences discussed in the text of this report 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. 

18A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes from 2015 to 2017 in the distribution of households across the household characteristics listed in 

Appendix Table A.2. Changes in the socioeconomic characteristics of households (annual income level, monthly income volatility, employment status, homeownership 

status, and educational attainment) between 2015 and 2017 accounted for almost all of the difference in unbanked rates between 2015 and 2017. Adding controls for 

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

Comparing the fully banked rate in 2017 to earlier years is 

made more difficult by an increase in the proportion of households that were banked but provided insufficient information 

on their use of AFS to be categorized as either underbanked 

or fully banked. Table 3.1 shows that the proportion of U.S. 

households that were fully banked in 2017 (68.4 percent) was 

slightly higher than the 2015 estimate (68.0 percent).19 

Banking Status by Household Characteristics 

Consistent with previous surveys, banking status in 2017 

varied considerably across the U.S. population. For example, 

unbanked and underbanked rates were higher among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger 

households, black and Hispanic households, working-age 

disabled households, and households with volatile income.20 

Unbanked rates in 2017 were lower than or similar to 

unbanked rates in recent years for most segments of the 

population, as illustrated in Table 3.2. For example, recent 

declines in unbanked rates have been particularly sharp for 

younger households. Among households aged 15 to 24, the 

unbanked rate in 2017 was 10.0 percent, down from 13.1 

percent in 2015 and 15.7 percent in 2013. Declines were also 

substantial for households aged 25 to 34. 

Unbanked rates among black and Hispanic households have 

also sharply declined in recent years. Specifically, 16.9 percent of black households were unbanked in 2017, down from 

18.2 percent in 2015 and 20.6 percent in 2013.21 Among 

Hispanic households, 14.0 percent were unbanked in 2017, 

down from 16.2 percent in 2015 and 17.9 percent in 2013. 

Further, unbanked rates declined for Asian households from 

2015 to 2017, reversing most of the increase in the unbanked 

rate among this group from 2013 to 2015. 

Despite these improvements, unbanked rates for younger 

households and for black and Hispanic households remained 

substantially higher than the overall unbanked rate in 2017. 

Unbanked rates did not decline in recent years for a few segments of the population. For example, among working-age 

disabled households, unbanked rates were similar in 2013, 

2015, and 2017. 

Reflecting the decline in the underbanked rate at the national level between 2015 and 2017, underbanked rates also 

declined for many segments of the population during that period. For example, as shown in Table 3.3, underbanked rates 

decreased for households with less than $15,000 in income, 

households with a high school diploma (but no college), and 

working-age disabled households. 

Although underbanked rates among certain groups declined 

considerably from 2015 to 2017, the change relative to 2013 

was not quite as large in many cases. For example, among 

households with less than $15,000 in income, the underbanked rate in 2017 (20.9 percent) was 3.4 percentage points 

lower than in 2015 (24.3 percent) but only 1.4 percentage 

points lower than in 2013 (22.4 percent). (See Appendix 

Table A.4.) 

Table 3.1 National Estimates, Household Banking Status by Year 

For all households, row percent 

Year Number of Households 

(1000s) 

Unbanked 

(Percent) 

Underbanked 

(Percent) 

Fully banked 

(Percent) 

Banked, underbanked 

status unknown 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

123,750 

127,538 

129,276 

7.7 

7.0 

6.5 

20.0 

19.9 

18.7 

67.0 

68.0 

68.4 

5.3 

5.0 

6.3 

19Excluding banked households with unknown underbanked status, the fully banked rate increased from 71.6 percent in 2015 to 73.1 percent in 2017, and this increase 

was statistically significant. The decline in the underbanked rate from 2015 to 2017 was statistically significant regardless of whether banked households with unknown 

underbanked status were excluded (excluding such households, the underbanked rate was 21.0 percent in 2015 and 20.0 percent in 2017). 

20For characteristics that vary at the person-level, 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 when referring to certain household characteristics. For example, the term “white 

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

household” refers to a household in which the householder has a disability and is aged 25 to 64. See Appendix 1 for additional details. For monthly income volatility, 

the 2015 and 2017 surveys asked households 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. 

21The decline in the unbanked rate for black households from 2013 to 2017 was no longer statistically significant after accounting for changes in the other household 

characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2 (except for monthly income volatility, which is not available for 2013). Most of the decline can be attributed to changes in 

income and the other household characteristics across survey years. 

18 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Table 3.2 Unbanked Rates by Selected Household Characteristics and Year 

For all households 

Characteristics 2013 

(Percent) 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017–2015) 

All 

Family income 

7.7 7.0 6.5 –0.5* 

Less than $15,000 27.7 25.6 25.7 0.1 

$15,000 to $30,000 11.4 11.8 12.3 0.4 

$30,000 to $50,000 5.1 5.0 5.1 0.1 

$50,000 to $75,000 1.7 1.6 1.5 –0.1 

At least $75,000 

Education 

0.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 

No high school diploma 25.1 23.2 22.4 –0.8 

High school diploma 10.8 9.7 9.4 –0.2 

Some college 5.6 5.5 5.1 –0.4 

College degree 

Age group 

1.1 1.1 1.3 0.1 

15 to 24 years 15.7 13.1 10.0 –3.1* 

25 to 34 years 12.5 10.6 8.5 –2.1* 

35 to 44 years 9.0 8.9 7.8 –1.2* 

45 to 54 years 7.5 6.7 6.9 0.2 

55 to 64 years 5.6 5.8 5.9 0.1 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

3.5 3.1 3.9 0.8* 

Black 20.6 18.2 16.9 –1.3 

Hispanic 17.9 16.2 14.0 –2.3* 

Asian 2.2 4.0 2.5 –1.5* 

White 3.6 3.1 3.0 –0.1 

Other 

Disability status 

15.0 11.1 12.8 1.7 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 18.4 17.6 18.1 0.5 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income 

volatility 

7.2 6.5 5.7 –0.8* 

Income was about the 

same each month 5.7 5.6 –0.1 

Income varied somewhat 

from month to month 8.7 6.8 –1.9* 

Income varied a lot from 

month to month 12.9 13.2 0.3 

Notes: Monthly income volatility is not available for 2013. Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Table 

A.3 for estimates by other household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

19 
 

 

Table 3.3 Underbanked and Fully Banked Rates by Selected Household Characteristics and Year 

For all households 

Characteristics 

Underbanked 

2015 2017 Difference 

(Percent) (Percent) (2017–2015) 

Fully banked 

2015 2017 Difference 

(Percent) (Percent) (2017–2015) 

Banked, 

underbanked status unknown 

2015 2017 Difference 

(Percent) (Percent) (2017–2015) 

All 

Family income 

19.9 18.7 –1.2* 68.0 68.4 0.4 5.0 6.3 1.3* 

Less than $15,000 24.3 20.9 –3.4* 45.1 47.7 2.6* 4.9 5.7 0.7 

$15,000 to $30,000 23.6 22.4 –1.2 59.5 58.3 –1.1 5.1 7.0 1.9* 

$30,000 to $50,000 23.7 22.8 –0.9 66.2 65.4 –0.8 5.1 6.8 1.7* 

$50,000 to $75,000 20.2 19.7 –0.5 73.0 72.8 –0.2 5.1 6.0 0.9* 

At least $75,000 

Education 

13.4 13.3 –0.1 81.3 79.9 –1.3* 4.9 6.2 1.3* 

No high school 

diploma 

25.9 24.3 –1.6 46.4 46.3 –0.1 4.5 7.0 2.5* 

High school diploma 22.2 20.3 –1.8* 62.9 63.7 0.8 5.3 6.5 1.2* 

Some college 22.0 20.8 –1.2* 67.7 67.8 0.1 4.8 6.3 1.5* 

College degree 

Age group 

14.5 14.4 –0.1 79.1 78.3 –0.8 5.2 6.1 0.9* 

15 to 24 years 29.4 29.3 –0.1 52.1 56.5 4.5* 5.5 4.2 –1.3 

25 to 34 years 24.5 23.1 –1.4 60.8 62.5 1.6 4.0 5.9 1.9* 

35 to 44 years 22.7 22.2 –0.5 63.1 63.6 0.5 5.3 6.5 1.2* 

45 to 54 years 21.1 19.3 –1.8* 67.5 67.1 –0.3 4.8 6.7 1.9* 

55 to 64 years 18.5 17.8 –0.8 70.9 70.3 –0.6 4.8 6.0 1.2* 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

13.0 11.6 –1.4* 78.1 77.5 –0.6 5.8 7.0 1.2* 

Black 31.1 30.4 –0.7 45.5 45.8 0.3 5.2 6.9 1.7* 

Hispanic 29.3 28.9 –0.3 48.9 49.7 0.8 5.6 7.4 1.8* 

Asian 21.0 17.5 –3.5* 67.2 69.2 2.0 7.8 10.8 2.9* 

White 15.6 14.1 –1.5* 76.6 77.1 0.5 4.7 5.7 1.1* 

Other 

Disability status 

27.5 28.0 0.5 56.7 55.8 –0.9 4.6 3.3 –1.3 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 28.4 24.7 –3.7* 49.7 52.2 2.5 4.3 5.0 0.8 

Not disabled, age 25 

to 64 

Monthly income 

volatility 

20.6 19.9 –0.7 68.1 68.0 –0.1 4.8 6.4 1.6* 

Income was about the 

same each month 

19.1 18.1 –1.0* 74.4 75.2 0.8* 0.8 1.0 0.2* 

Income varied 

somewhat from 

month to month 

26.6 26.2 –0.5 64.0 66.1 2.1* 0.6 0.9 0.3 

Income varied a lot 

from month to month 

30.9 28.2 –2.7 55.2 57.9 2.7 1.0 0.7 –0.3 

Notes: Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Tables A.4 and A.5 for underbanked and fully banked rates 

by other household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

20 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
 

 

 

Figure 3.3 Unbanked Rates by State, 2017 

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

ID

IL IN

IA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN MT

NE

NH

ND

OH

OR

PA

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

WI

WY

DC

AK

NJ

HI

RI

NM

OK

AR

CA

LA

MS AL

GA

WV

NY

AZ

SD

MO

IL OH

NC

SC

NV KS

TN

TX

KY

Less than 3.4 

3.4 to 5.0 

5.0 to 6.5 

6.5 to 7.8 

At least 7.8 

Figure 3.4 Underbanked Rates by State, 2017 

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

ID

IL IN

IA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN MT

NE

NH

ND

OH

OR

PA

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

WI

WY

DC

AK

NJ

HI

RI

PA

VA

NM

OK

AR

LA

MS AL

GA

WV

NY

OR

WY

AZ

MO

NC

SC

NV KS

TN

TX

KY

Less than 15.7 

15.7 to 17.9 

17.9 to 19.3 

19.3 to 21.4 

At least 21.4 

21 
 

Banking Status by Geography 

Regional variation in unbanked and underbanked rates in 

2017 was similar to previous years: unbanked and underbanked rates were highest in the South. The unbanked rate 

in the South was 7.7 percent in 2017, compared with 5.4 

percent in the Midwest and 6.0 percent in the Northeast and 

West. However, the gaps in unbanked rates between the 

South and the other regions have narrowed since 2015. The 

unbanked rate for the South in 2017 was 1.0 percentage point 

lower than the 2015 estimate (8.7 percent), while the other 

regions experienced smaller changes in unbanked rates for 

that period. The South also saw a slight decline in the underbanked rate from 2015 to 2017, but the declines were more 

pronounced for the other regions. (See Appendix Tables A.3 

and A.4.) 

Unbanked and underbanked rates in 2017 varied widely 

across states, as illustrated in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. Reflecting 

the regional variation described above and similar to estimates from previous years, unbanked and underbanked rates 

were generally higher among states in the South. Unbanked 

rates ranged from 1.5 percent (Vermont and Minnesota) to 

15.8 percent (Mississippi), while underbanked rates ranged 

from 11.6 percent (Vermont and Wisconsin) to 25.1 percent 

(Nevada). Some states saw large changes in unbanked rates 

in recent years. For example, the unbanked rate in Arizona 

was 5.4 percent in 2017, down from 8.5 percent in 2015 and 

12.8 percent in 2013, while the unbanked rate in South Dakota was 8.1 percent in 2017, up from 4.2 percent in 2015 and 

Table 3.4 Household Banking Status Transitions by Year 

For all households, row percent 

2013. (See Appendix Tables A.7 – A.14 for detailed estimates 

by state and metropolitan statistical area [MSA] and for selected confidence intervals.22) 

Transitions in Bank Account Ownership 

As discussed in previous reports, bank account ownership is 

not static and some households appear to cycle in and out 

of the banking system. Table 3.4 segments households by 

changes in bank account ownership within the past year.23 

In 2017, 5.8 percent of households were longer-term unbanked, meaning that they did not have a bank account at 

the time of the survey or at any time in the 12 months before 

the survey.24 A small proportion of households, 0.6 percent, 

were recently unbanked, meaning that they did not have an 

account at the time of the survey but did at some point in the 

12 months before. 

Another 3.9 percent of households were recently banked, 

meaning that they had an account at the time of the survey 

but did not at some point in the 12 months before the survey. 

The remaining 89.7 percent of households were longer-term 

banked, meaning that they had an account at the time of the 

survey and continually during the 12 months before. 

These patterns are fairly similar to 2015 and 2013. One notable difference is that while similar proportions of households 

were recently banked in 2015 and 2017, the proportion more 

than doubled from 2013 to 2015.25 

Year 

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 

Longer–term 

unbanked 

(Percent) 

Recently 

unbanked 

(Percent) 

Recently 

banked 

(Percent) 

Longer–term 

banked 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

120,918 

125,402 

127,085 

7.1 

6.2 

5.8 

0.7 

0.8 

0.6 

1.6 

3.8 

3.9 

90.7 

89.2 

89.7 

22See http://www.economicinclusion.gov/five-year for five-year estimates of unbanked and underbanked rates at the state and MSA levels and for confidence intervals. 

23The analysis of household banking status transitions excludes 543 observations (representing roughly 2.2 million households) with missing information on recent 

banking status. The 2013 estimates in Table 3.4 differ from those published in the 2013 report because the 2013 report also dropped observations with missing 

information on life events that may have contributed to household transitions into and out of the banking system, questions about which were not repeated in later 

surveys. 

24Households that were longer-term unbanked may never have had an account, or they may have had an account at some point more than 12 months before the survey. 

25The increase from 2013 to 2015 in the proportion of households that were recently banked remained large and statistically significant even after accounting for 

changes in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2 (except for monthly income volatility, which is not available for 2013). 

22 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Unbanked Households: Previous Banking Status 

and Future Banking Plans 

Looking beyond one-year transitions in bank account ownership further supports the notion that bank account ownership 

is dynamic. As shown in Table 3.5, nearly half (47.0 percent) 

of unbanked households in 2017 had a bank account at some 

point in the past (i.e., were previously banked), similar to 

previous years.26 

Table 3.5 Previous Banking Status of Unbanked 

Households by Year 

For all unbanked households, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Unbanked 

Households 

(1000s) 

Once had 

bank account 

(Percent) 

Never had 

bank account 

(Percent) 

2013 9,437 46.6 53.4 

2015 8,811 47.3 52.7 

2017 8,207 47.0 53.0 

The proportion of unbanked households that were “very 

likely” or “somewhat likely” to open an account in the next 

12 months declined in 2017 compared with earlier years, 

while the proportion that were “not at all likely” increased. As 

shown in Table 3.6, 25.0 percent of unbanked households in 

2017 were very likely or somewhat likely to open an account, 

down from 37.9 percent in 2013.27 Further, 58.7 percent of 

unbanked households in 2017 were not at all likely to open 

an account, up from 40.0 percent in 2013.28 This increase 

was fairly widespread among segments of the unbanked 

population. (See Appendix Table A.15.) 

Reasons Households Were Unbanked 

As in previous years, the 2017 survey asked unbanked 

households about the reasons why they did not have a bank 

account. Findings are similar to those reported in previous years. 

As illustrated in Figure 3.5, more than half (52.7 percent) of 

unbanked households cited “Do not have enough money to 

keep in an account” as a reason for not having an account, 

the most commonly cited reason. This reason was also the 

most commonly cited main reason for not having an account 

(34.0 percent). Almost one-third (30.2 percent) of unbanked 

households cited “Don’t trust banks” as a reason for not 

having an account, the second-most commonly cited reason. 

This reason was also the second-most commonly cited main 

reason (12.6 percent). 

Other commonly cited reasons were “Avoiding a bank gives 

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

account fees are unpredictable.” Among these reasons, 

“Bank account fees are too high” was cited as a main reason 

more often than “Avoiding a bank gives more privacy” and 

“Bank account fees are unpredictable.” 

Reasons for not having an account were generally similar 

across unbanked households in 2017, regardless of whether 

they previously had an account or were likely to open an 

account in the future. A few exceptions are worth noting. As 

in previous years, higher proportions of previously banked 

households cited “Bank account fees are too high” (29.9 

percent) or “Bank account fees are unpredictable” (24.9 

percent) in 2017, compared with households that never had 

an account (21.1 and 17.0 percent, respectively). Moreover, 

higher proportions of unbanked households that were not 

at all likely or not very likely to open a bank account in the 

next 12 months cited “Don’t trust banks” (36.2 and 31.5 

percent, respectively) in 2017, compared with unbanked 

households that were somewhat likely or very likely to open a 

bank account in the next 12 months (24.7 and 21.0 percent, 

respectively). (See Appendix Tables A.16 – A.19 for cited and 

main reasons for not having an account by previous banking 

status and the likelihood of opening an account.) 

26The analysis of previous banking status excludes 50 observations (representing roughly 0.2 million unbanked households) with missing information on previous 

banking status. The 2013 and 2015 estimates in Table 3.5 differ from those published in earlier reports because such observations were not dropped in earlier reports. 

27The analysis of future banking plans excludes 164 observations (representing roughly 0.8 million unbanked households) with missing information on the likelihood 

of opening a bank account in the next 12 months. The 2013 and 2015 estimates in Table 3.6 differ from those published in earlier reports because such observations 

were not dropped in earlier reports. 

28The proportion of unbanked households that were not at all likely to open an account in the next 12 months was substantially higher in 2017 than in 2013, even after 

accounting for changes in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2 (except for monthly income volatility, which is not available for 2013) and in the 

use of prepaid cards between 2013 and 2017. 

23 
 

Table 3.6 Unbanked Households’ Likelihood of Opening a Bank Account in Next 12 Months by Year 

For all unbanked households, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Unbanked 

Households 

(1000s) 

Very likely 

(Percent) 

Somewhat likely 

(Percent) 

Not very likely 

(Percent) 

Not at all likely 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

9,021 

8,358 

7,682 

14.6 

10.2 

9.5 

23.3 

18.2 

15.6 

22.1 

19.4 

16.3 

40.0 

52.2 

58.7 

Figure 3.5 Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account, Unbanked Households, 2017 (Percent) 

12.3 

14.9 

2.1 

9.2 

4.1 

9.4 

1.6 

13.1 

4.9 

14.0 

1.3 

20.2 

8.6 

24.7 

3.0 

28.2 

12.6 

30.2 

34.0 

52.7 

Other reason 

Inconvenient locations 

Inconvenient hours 

Banks do not offer needed products or services 

ID, credit, or former bank account problems 

Account fees unpredictable 

Account fees too high 

Avoiding bank gives more privacy 

Don't trust banks 

Do not have enough money to keep in account 

Cited Main 

24 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
25 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

4. Banked Households: Types of Accounts, Methods Used to Access Accounts, and Bank Branch Visits 

Types of Accounts Owned by Banked Households 

Savings and checking account ownership among banked 

households in 2017 was similar to previous years, as shown 

in Table 4.1.29 Almost all banked households had a checking 

account (98.2 percent), while roughly three in four (78.0 

percent) had a savings account. 

Savings account ownership rates in 2017 varied widely 

across the population. Differences by income and education 

were especially pronounced. For example, among banked 

households with less than $15,000 in income, only 52.8 

percent had a savings account in 2017. In contrast, 91.0 

percent of households with income of $75,000 or more had 

a savings account in 2017. In addition, savings account 

ownership rates were lower among Hispanic households, 

working-age disabled households, and households in rural 

areas. (See Appendix Table B.2 for details.) 

Methods Banked Households Used to Access Their 

Accounts 

Knowing how households access their bank accounts can 

help inform discussions about how best to serve different 

groups of consumers. As in the 2013 and 2015 surveys, 

banked households were asked about the methods they used 

to access their accounts in the past 12 months and about the 

primary method used.30 The results show that use of mobile 

banking continued to increase sharply, while use of bank 

tellers declined. Use of bank tellers, however, remained quite 

prevalent, particularly among segments of the population that 

had higher unbanked and underbanked rates. 

As shown in Table 4.2, in 2017, almost three in four (73.6 

percent) banked households used bank tellers to access their 

accounts in the past 12 months, a higher proportion than any 

other method asked about in the survey.31 However, use of 

bank tellers declined modestly between 2013 and 2017, while 

use of mobile and online banking increased. The growth in 

the use of mobile banking was particularly striking, rising from 

23.2 percent in 2013 to 31.9 percent in 2015 and 40.4 percent 

in 2017. 

Table 4.3 shows the primary method banked households used 

to access their accounts. In 2017, online banking remained 

the most prevalent primary method of account access (36.0 

percent), despite having declined slightly from 2015. Use of 

mobile banking increased sharply from 2013 to 2017, while 

use of bank tellers declined substantially. Even with the 

decline in the use of bank tellers, this method remained the 

second-most prevalent primary method. 

Table 4.1 Types of Accounts Owned by Banked Households by Year 

For all banked households, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 

Checking and 

savings 

(Percent) 

Savings only 

(Percent) 

Checking only 

(Percent) 

Memo: 

Has savings 

(Percent) 

Memo: 

Has checking 

(Percent) 

2013 111,926 73.8 2.2 24.0 76.0 97.8 

2015 116,137 75.8 2.0 22.2 77.8 98.0 

2017 118,253 76.2 1.8 22.0 78.0 98.2 

29As in previous years, the 2017 survey asked about savings and checking account ownership for each person within the household. The analysis of checking and 

savings account ownership presented in this section excludes 632 observations (representing roughly 2.6 million banked households) where at least one person in 

the household had missing information on bank account type, and there was not enough information from the remaining persons in the household to categorize the 

household by the types of bank accounts owned. Estimates of checking and savings account ownership among banked households presented in this section may 

differ slightly from the 2013 report because observations with missing information on bank account type were not dropped in the 2013 report. 

30Specifically, banked households were asked about bank tellers, ATMs/kiosks, telephone banking, online banking, mobile banking, and other methods of account 

access used in the past 12 months. Households were then asked which method was their primary (i.e., most common) method used. The primary method of account 

access does not necessarily reflect intensity of use. 

31The analysis of bank account access methods presented in this section excludes 1,503 observations (representing roughly 5.8 million banked households) that did 

not access their accounts in the past 12 months or that did not report whether they accessed their accounts. 
 

Table 4.4 shows changes between 2015 and 2017 in the 

shares of banked households that used bank tellers, online 

banking, or mobile banking as their primary method of 

account access by banking status and selected household 

characteristics. Changes from 2015 to 2017 within segments 

of the population were generally similar to overall patterns: 

use of bank tellers declined as did use of online banking— 

though not by as much as use of bank tellers—and use of 

mobile banking increased considerably. 

Changes in primary account access methods from 2015 to 

2017 differed across age groups. Among older and younger 

households, use of bank tellers declined and use of mobile 

banking increased, consistent with overall trends. However, 

use of online banking increased among older households but 

declined among younger households. For the youngest age 

group, mobile banking is now the most prevalent primary 

method of account access. More than one-third (36.1 percent) 

of banked households aged 15 to 24 used mobile banking as 

their primary method, compared with 26.2 percent that used 

online banking as their primary method. 

Estimates show that use of mobile banking grew substantially 

among both underbanked and fully banked households. As 

in 2015, more underbanked households than fully banked 

households used mobile banking as their primary account 

access method in 2017 (20.8 percent compared with 14.5 

percent). Declines in the use of bank tellers were more 

pronounced for underbanked households than for fully 

banked households. In 2017, the proportion of underbanked 

households that primarily used bank tellers fell by 5.5 

percentage points to 22.3 percent, while the proportion 

among fully banked households fell by 3.5 percentage 

points to 24.6 percent. For underbanked and fully banked 

households, use of online banking as the primary method of 

account access changed very little from 2015 to 2017. The 

proportion of underbanked households that primarily used 

online banking (26.8 percent in 2017) remained lower than the 

proportion among fully banked households (38.9 percent). 

As in prior surveys, use of bank tellers as the primary 

means of account access remained quite prevalent among 

certain segments of the population, including lower-income 

households, less-educated households, older households, 

and households in rural areas. These groups were also 

disproportionately more likely to access their accounts using 

only bank tellers. For example, nearly one-third of banked 

households with no high school diploma and about one in 

five banked households in rural areas exclusively used bank 

tellers to access their accounts in 2017. Overall, 12.6 percent 

of banked households accessed their accounts using only 

bank tellers in 2017, compared with 14.6 percent in 2015. 

(See Appendix Table B.10 for details.) 

Table 4.2 All Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts by Year 

For all banked households that accessed their account in the past 12 months, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 

Bank teller 

(Percent) 

ATM/Kiosk 

(Percent) 

Telephone 

banking 

(Percent) 

Online 

banking 

(Percent) 

Mobile 

banking 

(Percent) 

Other 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

108,295 

113,315 

115,040 

78.8 

75.5 

73.6 

69.6 

69.8 

71.6 

26.1 

27.0 

28.9 

55.1 

60.4 

63.0 

23.2 

31.9 

40.4 

1.0 

1.1 

0.9 

Note: Row percentages sum to more than 100 because households were asked to select all bank account access methods used. 

Table 4.3 Primary Method Used to Access Bank Accounts by Year 

For all banked households that accessed their account in the past 12 months, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 

Bank teller 

(Percent) 

ATM/Kiosk 

(Percent) 

Telephone 

banking 

(Percent) 

Online 

banking 

(Percent) 

Mobile 

banking 

(Percent) 

Other 

(Percent) 

2013 108,295 32.2 24.4 3.3 32.9 5.7 0.8 

2015 113,315 28.2 21.0 3.0 36.9 9.5 0.9 

2017 115,040 24.3 19.9 2.9 36.0 15.6 0.7 

26 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Table 4.4 Use of Bank Tellers, Online Banking, or Mobile Banking as Primary Method of Account Access by Banking 

Status and Selected Household Characteristics and Year 

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

Characteristics 

Bank teller 

2015 2017 Difference 

(Percent) (Percent) (2017-2015) 

Online banking 

2015 2017 Difference 

(Percent) (Percent) (2017-2015) 

Mobile banking 

2015 2017 Difference 

(Percent) (Percent) (2017-2015) 

All 

Banking status 

28.2 24.3 -3.8* 36.9 36.0 -0.9* 9.5 15.6 6.1* 

Underbanked 27.8 22.3 -5.5* 27.6 26.8 -0.8 12.6 20.8 8.2* 

Fully banked 

Family income 

28.2 24.6 -3.5* 39.9 38.9 -1.0* 8.7 14.5 5.8* 

Less than $15,000 41.7 38.8 -2.8* 18.0 17.2 -0.8 7.1 11.2 4.2* 

$15,000 to $30,000 40.5 38.0 -2.5* 20.8 19.4 -1.3 8.1 11.7 3.6* 

$30,000 to $50,000 32.5 28.9 -3.6* 29.1 27.7 -1.4 9.7 16.0 6.3* 

$50,000 to $75,000 25.8 23.3 -2.5* 39.7 38.0 -1.6 11.3 15.8 4.5* 

At least $75,000 

Education 

16.7 13.3 -3.4* 53.6 50.6 -3.0* 9.7 17.9 8.2* 

No high school diploma 50.8 46.2 -4.5* 11.8 10.8 -1.0 4.0 8.2 4.2* 

High school diploma 38.2 33.8 -4.4* 24.5 24.7 0.2 7.5 11.6 4.1* 

Some college 25.6 22.9 -2.6* 36.8 35.0 -1.7* 11.6 17.5 5.9* 

College degree 

Age group 

17.9 14.8 -3.1* 51.5 49.1 -2.4* 10.4 18.2 7.8* 

15 to 24 years 15.9 13.3 -2.7* 31.4 26.2 -5.2* 25.0 36.1 11.1* 

25 to 34 years 14.3 10.6 -3.6* 42.6 35.7 -6.9* 21.9 35.0 13.1* 

35 to 44 years 16.9 13.6 -3.3* 45.8 42.4 -3.4* 14.3 22.6 8.4* 

45 to 54 years 22.9 18.7 -4.2* 42.0 42.6 0.6 7.6 13.2 5.7* 

55 to 64 years 31.7 26.1 -5.6* 37.3 39.0 1.6* 3.4 7.0 3.7* 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

48.7 45.1 -3.6* 23.8 26.9 3.1* 1.2 2.7 1.4* 

Black 30.1 23.8 -6.3* 25.1 24.3 -0.8 11.3 17.7 6.4* 

Hispanic 29.3 25.9 -3.4* 27.2 25.8 -1.5 12.6 19.3 6.7* 

Asian 25.5 19.1 -6.4* 44.4 46.0 1.7 9.0 16.3 7.3* 

White 27.9 24.5 -3.3* 40.0 39.2 -0.8 8.6 14.5 5.8* 

Other 

Disability status 

25.4 24.5 -0.8 33.8 29.8 -4.0 12.5 18.5 6.0* 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 32.4 28.7 -3.7* 25.9 26.5 0.6 6.6 10.0 3.5* 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

20.6 16.3 -4.3* 43.8 41.6 -2.2* 11.9 19.8 8.0* 

Income was about the same 

each month 28.6 24.8 -3.8* 37.3 36.6 -0.7 8.7 14.9 6.2* 

Income varied somewhat 

from month to month 25.3 20.8 -4.5* 37.4 35.2 -2.1* 13.0 19.6 6.6* 

Income varied a lot from 

month to month 

Metropolitan status 

30.2 24.9 -5.3* 33.7 35.8 2.1 13.0 19.3 6.3* 

Metropolitan area - principal 

city 24.6 19.8 -4.8* 36.9 35.9 -1.0 11.1 18.1 7.1* 

Metropolitan area - balance 24.9 21.8 -3.2* 40.8 39.4 -1.3* 9.5 15.6 6.1* 

Not in metropolitan area 41.5 37.8 -3.8* 27.4 27.4 -0.1 6.7 11.2 4.5* 

Not identified 31.9 28.8 -3.1* 34.0 33.5 -0.5 8.9 14.5 5.6* 

Notes: Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Tables B.5 – B.9 for estimates by other household 

characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

27 
28 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Mobile Phone, Smartphone, and Home Internet Access 

As noted in earlier survey reports, financial institutions—banks and nonbanks—are seeking to interact with their customers 

through the internet and mobile phones, especially smartphones. 

Table 4.5 shows that smartphone access grew markedly from 2013 to 2017. As in 2013 and 2015, more than eight in ten 

households had access to a mobile phone in 2017. 

Mobile phone and smartphone access continued to be lower among unbanked households than underbanked and fully 

banked households. However, approximately half (49.5 percent) of unbanked households owned or had regular access to a 

smartphone in 2017, a substantial increase from 2013 and 2015. 

As in 2015, unbanked households in 2017 were much more likely to own or have regular access to a smartphone (49.5 percent) than to have internet access at home using a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer (28.5 percent). Among mobile phone, 

smartphone, and home internet access, the largest difference between unbanked households and underbanked and fully 

banked households continued to be in home internet access. 

Table 4.5 Mobile Phone, Smartphone, and Home Internet Access by Banking Status and Year 

For all households 

Mobile phone Smartphone Internet at home 

2013 

(Percent) 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

2013 

(Percent) 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

All 

Banking status 

Unbanked 

Underbanked 

Fully banked 

82.7 

68.1 

90.5 

86.8 

84.2 

69.0 

91.4 

88.6 

84.5 

70.5 

92.8 

90.0 

0.3 

1.5 

1.4* 

1.4* 

55.7 

33.1 

64.5 

59.0 

67.1 

42.9 

75.5 

71.1 

72.7 

49.5 

83.2 

77.6 

5.6* 

6.6* 

7.7* 

6.5* 

72.0 

27.7 

72.8 

80.6 

72.6 

28.5 

76.1 

81.4 

0.6 

0.8 

3.2* 

0.8* 

Notes: Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. Estimates of internet access at home are not available for 2013. 

See Appendix Tables B.15 – B.17 for estimates by household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

Bank Branch Visits Among Banked Households 

The 2017 survey included new questions that asked all 

households whether they spoke with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch (i.e., visited a bank branch) 

in the past 12 months, and if so, how many times.32 Since 

2013, the survey has measured the share of households that 

accessed their accounts using bank tellers. However, some 

households may rely on bank branches for activities other 

than accessing an account, such as resolving a problem or 

asking about products or services, and the questions on account access methods provide only an imprecise measure of 

the intensity of branch use. The goal of the new questions is 

to provide a more complete picture of household use of bank 

branches. 

Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of bank branch visits among 

banked households.33 Overall, 86.0 percent of banked households visited a bank branch in the past 12 months. About one 

in three (30.8 percent) banked households visited a branch 

one to four times, 18.2 percent visited five to nine times, and 

35.4 percent visited ten or more times. The remaining 14.0 

percent of banked households did not visit a branch in the 

past 12 months.34 

32Households that spoke with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch were asked whether they did so one to four times in the past 12 months, five to nine 

times in the past 12 months, or ten or more times in the past 12 months. 

33The analysis of bank branch visits for banked households presented in this section excludes 1,048 observations (representing roughly 4.2 million banked households) 

with missing information on whether the household visited a bank branch in the past 12 months. 

34Among unbanked households, 14.7 percent visited a bank branch in the past 12 months: 7.7 percent visited a branch one to four times, 2.2 percent visited five to 

nine times, and 4.7 percent visited ten or more times. Approximately two-thirds of unbanked households that visited a branch did not have a bank account at any time 

in the past 12 months. (See Appendix Table B.13 for detailed estimates of bank branch visits among unbanked households by previous banking status and household 

characteristics.) 
29 

 

Figure 4.1 Bank Branch Visits in Past 12 Months Among 

Banked Households, 2017 (Percent) 

14.0 

30.8 

18.2 

35.4 

0 times 1 to 4 

times 

5 to 9 

times 

10 or more 

times 

Note: Households that visited a branch but with unknown frequency 

(1.6 percent of banked households) are not shown. 

Table 4.6 shows bank branch visits among banked 

households by the primary method used to access an 

account. About two-thirds (67.8 percent) of banked 

households that used bank tellers as their primary method 

visited a branch ten or more times. Branch visits were 

prevalent even among banked households that used online or 

mobile banking as their primary method of account access. 

For example, 81.0 percent of banked households that used 

mobile banking as their primary method visited a branch in 

the past 12 months, and nearly one-quarter (23.0 percent) 

visited ten or more times. 

Patterns of bank branch visits among banked households 

varied by household characteristics, as shown in Table 4.7. 

For example, older households, households in rural areas, 

and households with volatile income were more likely to visit 

a branch or to have visited ten or more times. Black, Hispanic, 

and Asian households were less likely to visit a branch or to 

have visited ten or more times. While lower-income and lesseducated households were less likely to visit a branch overall, 

those that did visit a branch were more likely to have visited 

ten or more times.35 (See Appendix Table B.12 for bank 

branch visits among banked households that visited 

a branch.) 

Table 4.6 Bank Branch Visits in Past 12 Months Among Banked Households by Selected Primary Methods of Account 

Access, 2017 

For all banked households, row percent 

0 times 

(Percent) 

1 to 4 times 

(Percent) 

5 to 9 times 

(Percent) 

10 or more times 

(Percent) 

All 

Primary method of account 

access 

Bank teller 

Online banking 

Mobile banking 

14.0 

0.0 

15.7 

19.0 

30.8 

16.1 

35.6 

38.7 

18.2 

14.1 

20.5 

18.8 

35.4 

67.8 

27.2 

23.0 

Note: Households that visited a branch but with unknown frequency (1.6 percent of banked households) are not shown. 

35The finding that lower-income and less-educated households were more likely to have visited a branch ten or more times is consistent with patterns for bank account 

access methods: lower-income and less-educated households were more likely to use bank tellers as their primary or only method of account access. 
30 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Table 4.7 Bank Branch Visits in Past 12 Months Among Banked Households by Banking Status and Selected Household 

Characteristics, 2017 

For all banked households, row percent 

Characteristics 0 times 

(Percent) 

1 to 4 times 

(Percent) 

5 to 9 times 

(Percent) 

10 or more times 

(Percent) 

All 

Banking status 

14.0 30.8 18.2 35.4 

Underbanked 12.6 32.4 17.4 37.0 

Fully banked 

Family income 

14.3 30.7 18.6 35.5 

Less than $15,000 20.0 28.9 13.5 35.7 

$15,000 to $30,000 14.5 29.1 15.6 38.6 

$30,000 to $50,000 13.3 30.3 18.0 36.5 

$50,000 to $75,000 12.8 30.7 18.6 36.6 

At least $75,000 

Education 

13.1 32.3 20.2 32.9 

No high school diploma 17.8 27.1 13.2 39.7 

High school diploma 13.6 29.3 15.9 39.3 

Some college 13.2 30.1 18.7 36.5 

College degree 

Age group 

14.0 33.1 20.3 31.2 

15 to 24 years 16.9 34.7 17.5 30.1 

25 to 34 years 19.0 35.6 18.0 26.1 

35 to 44 years 16.7 35.2 17.9 28.1 

45 to 54 years 12.8 30.9 19.1 35.7 

55 to 64 years 11.8 28.7 18.0 40.0 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

10.9 25.7 18.0 43.5 

Black 18.0 35.3 17.7 27.2 

Hispanic 17.2 35.3 16.0 29.7 

Asian 19.6 34.1 17.3 26.7 

White 12.2 29.0 18.7 38.4 

Other 

Disability status 

13.2 27.0 15.6 43.1 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 15.6 30.2 16.1 37.1 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

14.8 32.7 18.5 32.3 

Income was about the same each month 14.7 31.4 18.4 34.7 

Income varied somewhat from month to month 10.9 31.0 18.5 38.8 

Income varied a lot from month to month 

Metropolitan status 

9.3 25.7 17.0 46.7 

Metropolitan area - principal city 17.1 33.5 17.9 29.8 

Metropolitan area - balance 14.0 32.8 18.7 32.7 

Not in metropolitan area 9.5 22.5 17.9 49.0 

Not identified 11.4 26.8 17.4 42.6 

Notes: Households that visited a branch but with unknown frequency (1.6 percent of banked households) are not shown. See Appendix Table B.11 for estimates by 

other household characteristics. 
31 

Mobile Activities Among Banked Households 

The 2017 survey included a series of questions about the 

ways households used a mobile phone for banking activities 

in the past 12 months. Most of these activities were also 

asked about in the 2013 survey.36 

Figure 4.2 presents use of mobile activities among banked 

households in 2013 and 2017.37 Use of a mobile phone to 

check email from a bank about an account was the most 

common activity in 2017, performed by 44.1 percent of 

banked households.38 Other common activities, performed 

by about one-third of banked households in 2017, were using 

a bank’s mobile website or bank’s mobile app to check a 

bank account balance or recent transactions, and receiving 

a mobile text alert or push notification from a bank about an 

account. Use of a mobile phone to check a bank account balance or recent transactions increased substantially from 19.0 

percent in 2013 to 35.4 percent in 2017. The remaining mobile 

activities asked about in the survey were less common, but 

the proportion of banked households that performed each 

of these activities doubled or more than doubled from 2013 

to 2017. Growth in the use of a mobile phone’s camera to 

deposit a check into a bank account was particularly striking, 

as the proportion of banked households that performed this 

activity more than tripled, from 5.6 percent in 2013 to 18.0 

percent in 2017. 

Figure 4.2 Mobile Activities Among Banked Households by Year (Percent) 

13.7 

5.9 

18.0 

5.6 

25.4 

12.2 

26.5 

13.2 

34.0 

35.4 

19.0 

44.1 

Sent money to others 

Deposited a check electronically 

Transferred money between accounts 

Bill payment 

Text message alert 

Checked balance or transactions 

Checked email about an account 

2013 2017 

Note: Estimates of the proportion of banked households that used a mobile phone to check email from a bank about an account or that received a mobile text alert 

or push notification from a bank about an account are not available for 2013. 

36All of the activities asked about in the 2017 survey, except for whether a household used a mobile phone to check email from a bank about an account, were also 

asked in the 2013 survey. The 2013 survey included some activities not asked about in the 2017 survey. See Appendix 2 for additional details. 

37Use of a mobile phone to check email from a bank about an account was asked only in 2017, so estimates are not available for 2013. Different types of households in 

the 2013 and 2017 surveys were asked whether they received a mobile text alert or push notification from a bank about an account, so estimates of the proportion of 

banked households that performed this activity cannot be compared over time. 

38In the 2017 survey, all banked households were asked whether they used a mobile phone to check email from a bank about an account, even if they did not report that 

they used mobile banking to access their accounts. The proportion of banked households that checked email from a bank about an account (44.1 percent) was higher 

than the proportion of banked households that used mobile banking to access their accounts in 2017 (40.4 percent; see Table 4.2). The Federal Reserve found similar 

discrepancies in the 2017 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking. See “Mobile Banking: A Closer Look at Survey Measures,” March 27, 2018 (available at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/mobile-banking-a-closer-look-at-survey-measures-20180327.htm). 
 

Table 4.8 Mobile Activities Among Banked Households by Banking Status and Selected Household Characteristics, 2017 

For all banked households, row percent 

Characteristics 

Checked 

email about 

an account 

(Percent) 

Checked 

balance or 

transactions 

(Percent) 

Text message 

alert 

(Percent) 

Bill payment 

(Percent) 

Transferred 

money 

between 

accounts 

(Percent) 

Deposited 

a check 

electronically 

(Percent) 

Sent money 

to others 

(Percent) 

All 

Banking status 

44.1 35.4 34.0 26.5 25.4 18.0 13.7 

Underbanked 52.8 42.5 42.3 30.7 29.5 19.7 16.9 

Fully banked 

Family income 

44.3 35.7 33.9 27.0 26.1 18.8 13.7 

Less than $15,000 26.4 18.3 18.5 11.1 10.0 6.4 5.8 

$15,000 to $30,000 29.6 21.2 20.3 13.8 11.6 7.7 6.0 

$30,000 to $50,000 38.8 30.4 28.4 21.6 19.7 12.9 9.9 

$50,000 to $75,000 46.0 36.1 34.7 27.4 25.9 17.7 13.0 

At least $75,000 

Education 

56.7 48.1 46.4 37.9 37.8 28.3 21.4 

No high school diploma 25.0 14.8 17.5 10.0 8.0 5.0 4.4 

High school diploma 33.6 25.2 24.8 17.8 15.6 9.2 7.3 

Some college 45.3 36.5 34.1 26.6 25.6 16.2 12.6 

College degree 

Age group 

54.3 45.8 43.6 35.6 35.3 28.0 20.7 

15 to 24 years 67.6 59.2 45.2 40.1 39.3 27.3 22.6 

25 to 34 years 67.6 60.7 50.6 45.0 44.4 34.4 26.5 

35 to 44 years 59.8 50.2 45.2 38.2 36.6 26.9 19.3 

45 to 54 years 49.0 39.6 39.4 30.3 28.8 19.2 14.6 

55 to 64 years 37.0 25.6 30.5 19.1 18.0 11.6 9.4 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

17.0 10.2 13.4 7.7 6.9 4.4 3.1 

Black 46.3 35.0 38.9 25.3 24.1 14.8 15.4 

Hispanic 49.6 37.0 39.8 29.5 25.0 16.2 15.1 

Asian 53.5 41.7 44.4 33.4 28.4 25.3 21.5 

White 42.0 34.6 31.3 25.5 25.3 18.3 12.5 

Other 

Disability status 

45.9 39.3 35.3 29.5 29.7 16.7 13.5 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 32.3 24.0 25.2 17.1 15.1 9.8 7.6 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

55.0 45.5 42.9 34.4 33.3 24.0 18.2 

Income was about the same 

each month 44.3 35.5 34.0 26.8 25.5 18.1 13.9 

Income varied somewhat 

from month to month 53.8 44.9 42.1 32.8 32.3 22.7 16.5 

Income varied a lot from 

month to month 51.9 43.6 41.3 30.0 32.4 24.9 18.3 

Note: See Appendix Table B.14 for estimates by other household characteristics. 

32 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Table 4.8 shows use of mobile activities among banked 

households in 2017 by banking status and selected household characteristics. Underbanked households were more 

likely to perform each activity than fully banked households. 

The three largest differences between underbanked and fully 

banked households were in checking email from a bank about 

an account, checking a bank account balance or recent transactions, and receiving a mobile text alert or push notification 

from a bank about an account. These results are consistent 

with the types of activities described in focus groups with underserved consumers conducted by the FDIC in 2015. Some 

consumers who used mobile financial services reported that 

mobile alerts and monitoring tools helped them reduce fees, 

better track their finances, and improve on-the-spot 

decision making.39 

Use of each mobile activity was more common among 

higher-income households, more-educated households, 

younger households, working-age nondisabled households, 

and households with volatile income. In many cases, differences in use were substantial across households of different 

characteristics. For example, 45.0 percent of households 

aged 25 to 34 used a bank’s mobile website or bank’s mobile 

app to make a bill payment, compared with only 7.7 percent 

of households aged 65 or older. Some differences were also 

observed in the use of mobile activities by race and ethnicity. 

For example, black and Hispanic households were more likely 

than white households to receive a mobile text alert or push 

notification from a bank about an account and less likely to 

use a mobile phone’s camera to deposit a check into a bank 

account. These differences, however, were generally smaller 

than differences by income, education, age, and disability 

status. 

39See “Opportunities for Mobile Financial Services to Engage Underserved Consumers Qualitative Research Findings,” May 25, 2016 (available at http://www.fdic.gov/ 

consumers/community/mobile/MFS_Qualitative_Research_Report.pdf). 

33 
34 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

 

5. Prepaid Cards 

Some consumers use general purpose reloadable prepaid 

cards to address their financial transactions 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. Consumers can obtain prepaid 

cards from sources such as a bank location or bank’s website, a nonbank store or website, a government agency, or an 

employer.40 Many, although not all, such cards store funds in 

accounts eligible for deposit insurance. 

As in the 2013 and 2015 surveys, the 2017 survey asked 

households whether they used a prepaid card in the past 

12 months, referred to in this report as prepaid card use.41 

Between 2015 and 2017, the proportion of households 

that used prepaid cards decreased from 9.8 percent to 9.2 

percent, as shown in Table 5.1. This decline can be attributed 

primarily to changes in income and other characteristics 

of U.S. households between 2015 and 2017. However, the 

proportion of households that used prepaid cards in 2017 

remained higher than in 2013 (7.9 percent).42 

Table 5.1 Prepaid Card Use in Past 12 Months by Year 

For all households, row percent 

Year 

Number of 

Households 

(1000s) 

Used 

(Percent) 

Did not use 

(Percent) 

Unknown 

(Percent) 

2013 

2015 

2017 

123,750 

127,538 

129,276 

7.9 

9.8 

9.2 

86.4 

85.8 

85.5 

5.7 

4.4 

5.4 

Prepaid Card Use by Household Characteristics 

Differences in prepaid card use across households were 

similar in 2017 to earlier years. As shown in Table 5.2, 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.43 

Mirroring the national trend, prepaid card use among many 

socioeconomic and demographic groups declined from 2015 

to 2017, though the declines were often not statistically significant. One exception is households aged 15 to 24, where 

prepaid card use increased from 12.4 percent in 2015 to 15.1 

percent in 2017. For most socioeconomic and demographic 

groups, prepaid card use in 2017 remained higher than in 

2013. 

Prepaid Card Use by Geography 

As in previous years, prepaid card use varied across regions 

of the United States. In 2017, 7.9 percent of households in 

the Northeast used prepaid cards, compared with 8.7 percent 

in the West, 9.5 percent in the South, and 10.0 percent in 

the Midwest. Figure 5.1 shows that prepaid card use varied 

considerably across states in 2017, ranging from 4.6 percent 

in Hawaii to 15.4 percent in Mississippi. (See Appendix Tables 

C.3 and C.4 for detailed state- and MSA-level estimates and 

for selected confidence intervals.) 

40Households were instructed that the survey questions about prepaid cards were “not asking about gift cards or debit cards linked to a checking account.” 

41For the 2017 survey, a small change was made to the introductory description of prepaid cards. See Appendix 2 for details. 

42After accounting for changes in bank account ownership and the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2, the remaining decrease in prepaid card use 

from 2015 to 2017 was not statistically significant, while the remaining increase in prepaid card use from 2013 to 2017 was statistically significant. 

43Some of these differences in prepaid card use, namely by income level, education, and race, can be explained by differences in bank account ownership and other 

household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2. 
Table 5.2 Prepaid Card Use in Past 12 Months by Selected Household Characteristics and Year 

For all households 

Characteristics 2013 

(Percent) 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

All 

Family income 

7.9 9.8 9.2 -0.6* 

Less than $15,000 11.4 14.3 13.0 -1.3 

$15,000 to $30,000 8.3 10.8 10.4 -0.4 

$30,000 to $50,000 8.3 8.8 9.1 0.3 

$50,000 to $75,000 6.4 9.2 7.7 -1.5* 

At least $75,000 

Education 

6.5 8.1 8.0 0.0 

No high school diploma 8.9 11.0 10.3 -0.7 

High school diploma 8.1 10.3 9.3 -1.0* 

Some college 8.8 10.8 10.0 -0.8 

College degree 

Age group 

6.7 8.0 8.0 0.0 

15 to 24 years 12.7 12.4 15.1 2.7* 

25 to 34 years 10.9 12.6 11.0 -1.6* 

35 to 44 years 10.3 11.4 10.8 -0.6 

45 to 54 years 9.1 11.0 10.7 -0.2 

55 to 64 years 6.4 9.3 8.7 -0.6 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

3.0 5.5 4.9 -0.6 

Black 11.5 13.9 13.3 -0.5 

Hispanic 7.8 9.6 7.9 -1.7* 

Asian 4.4 5.7 7.2 1.5 

White 7.3 9.1 8.5 -0.6* 

Other 

Disability status 

13.8 17.0 15.9 -1.1 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 12.4 15.2 15.7 0.5 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

8.7 10.4 9.4 -0.9* 

Income was about the same each 

month 9.2 8.9 -0.3 

Income varied somewhat from month 

to month 13.5 12.6 -1.0 

Income varied a lot from month to 

month 15.5 12.8 -2.7* 

Notes: Monthly income volatility is not available for 2013. Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Table 

C.1 for estimates by other household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

35 
 

 

Figure 5.1 Prepaid Card Use in Past 12 Months by State, 2017 (Percent) 

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

ID

IL IN

IA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN MT

NE

NH

ND

OH

OR

PA

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

WI

WY

DC

AK

NJ

HI

RI

ID

NM

OK

AR

IN OH

LA

MS AL

GA

WV

NY

OR

WY

UT

AZ

ND

SD

MO

NC

SC

NV KS

NE

TN

TX

KY

Less than 7.8 

7.8 to 9.0 

9.0 to 9.7 

9.7 to 11.1 

At least 11.1 

Prepaid Card Use by Banking Status 

Use of prepaid cards in 2017 was most prevalent among 

unbanked households, consistent with previous survey 

results. As illustrated in Figure 5.2, 26.9 percent of unbanked 

households used a prepaid card in 2017, compared with 14.5 

percent of underbanked households and 6.7 percent of fully 

banked households. These percentages are similar to 2015. In 

line with the increase in prepaid card use from 2013 to 2017 

at the national level, prepaid card use within each banking 

status group increased over this period. 

Figure 5.2 Prepaid Card Use in Past 12 Months by Banking 

Status and Year (Percent) 

Overall, approximately half (48.7 percent) of households that 

used prepaid cards in 2017 were either unbanked or underbanked, as shown in Figure 5.3. For context, this percentage 

is almost double the 25.2 percent of all households that were 

either unbanked or underbanked in 2017 (see Figure 3.1). 

Figure 5.3 Banking Status of Households That Used 

Prepaid Cards in Past 12 Months, 2017 (Percent) 

22.3 

27.1 26.9 

13.1 15.4 14.5 

5.3 6.9 6.7 

Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

2013 2015 2017 

Fully

banked 

50.0 

Underbanked 

29.6 

Banked, 

underbanked 

status unknown 

1.3 

Unbanked 

19.1 

36 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
37 

Figure 5.4 Cited Reasons for Not Having a Bank Account by Prepaid Card Use, 2017 (Percent) 

Do not have enough money to keep in account 

Don't trust banks 

Account fees too high 

Avoiding banks gives more privacy 

Account fees unpredictable 

ID, credit, or former bank account problems 

Banks do not offer needed products or services 

Inconvenient hours 

Inconvenient locations 

Other reason 15.6 

16.5 

9.8 

9.0 

9.8 

10.0 

13.2 

15.9 

14.3 

16.4 

18.8 

27.1 

29.9 

29.6 

22.3 

34.3 

30.2 

37.0 

57.8 

53.1 

Used prepaid card Did not use prepaid card 

Unbanked households that used prepaid cards were more 

likely to have had a bank account at some point in the past: 

62.7 percent of unbanked households that used prepaid 

cards in 2017 had a bank account in the past, compared 

with 41.9 percent of unbanked households that did not use 

prepaid cards. 

Though many of the cited reasons for not having a bank 

account were similar for households that used prepaid cards 

and those that did not, in some cases differences existed 

between these groups. For example, as illustrated in Figure 

5.4, unbanked households that used prepaid cards were 

more likely than those that did not use prepaid cards to cite 

the following reasons for not having an account: “Don’t trust 

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

fees are unpredictable.” Irrespective of prepaid card use, the 

most commonly cited reason for not having a bank account 

was “Do not have enough money to keep in an account.”44 

Sources of Prepaid Cards 

Consistent with previous survey results, households that used 

prepaid cards in 2017 obtained them from a variety of sources. As shown in Figure 5.5, the most common source in 2017 

was a store or website that is not a bank (45.4 percent of 

households that used prepaid cards obtained cards from this 

source), followed by a government agency, family or friends, 

and a bank location or a bank’s website. 

Among households that used prepaid cards, the proportion 

that obtained cards from stores or websites that are not 

banks increased from 42.6 percent in 2015 to 45.4 percent in 

2017, while the proportion that obtained cards from banks decreased from 17.3 percent to 13.3 percent.45 The decline from 

2015 to 2017 in the use of prepaid cards obtained from banks 

accounts for most of the decline in overall prepaid card use 

during this period.46 

As in 2015, sources of prepaid cards differed by banking 

status in 2017 (see Table 5.3). In particular, unbanked households that used prepaid cards were much less likely to have 

obtained cards from banks, compared with underbanked and 

fully banked households that used prepaid cards. Regardless 

of banking status, the most common source of prepaid cards 

in 2017 was a store or website that is not a bank. 

44The main reasons for not having a bank account showed qualitatively similar patterns as the cited reasons in Figure 5.4. 

45Estimates of the share of households that obtained prepaid cards from the various sources in 2015 and 2017 were not comparable to 2013 because of changes to 

the survey instrument. 

46Further, after accounting for changes in bank account ownership and the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2, the remaining decrease from 2015 to 

2017 in the use of prepaid cards from banks was statistically significant, unlike for overall prepaid card use. 
38 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households

 Figure 5.5 Sources of Prepaid Cards for Households That Used Prepaid Cards in Past 12 Months by Year (Percent) 

0.6 

1.3 

8.4 

6.8 

9.3 

9.2 

13.3 

17.3 

15.0 

14.2 

15.0 

14.8 

45.4 

42.6 

Unknown 

Other 

Employer payroll card 

Bank location or bank's website 

Family or friends 

Government agency 

Store or website that is not a bank 

2015 2017 

Note: Bars sum to more than 100 percent because households with multiple prepaid cards were asked to select all sources of their cards. 

Table 5.3 Sources of Prepaid Cards by Banking Status, 2017 

For all households that used prepaid cards in the past 12 months, row percent 

Characteristics 

Store or 

website that 

is not a bank 

(Percent) 

Government 

agency 

(Percent) 

Family or 

friends 

(Percent) 

Bank 

location 

or bank's 

website 

(Percent) 

Employer 

payroll card 

(Percent) 

Other 

(Percent) 

Unknown 

(Percent) 

All 

Banking status 

Unbanked 

Underbanked 

Fully banked 

45.4 

44.6 

48.4 

44.2 

15.0 

31.5 

12.4 

10.3 

15.0 

3.1 

13.5 

19.7 

13.3 

5.1 

14.9 

15.7 

9.3 

13.9 

9.6 

7.3 

8.4 

7.6 

8.3 

8.9 

0.6 

0.6 

0.6 

0.6 

Note: Row percentages sum to more than 100 because households with multiple prepaid cards were asked to select all sources of their cards. 
39 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

6. Alternative Financial Services 

As in earlier surveys, the 2017 survey asked households 

about their use of alternative financial services (AFS) during 

the past 12 months. Households were asked if they went to 

a place other than a bank to purchase a money order, cash a 

check, or send an international remittance (transaction AFS). 

Households were also asked whether they used any of the 

following nonbank products and services that may be used 

in lieu of bank credit: payday loans, refund anticipation loans, 

rent-to-own services, pawn shop loans, and auto title loans 

(credit AFS).47 

As shown in Table 6.1, 22.1 percent of households used 

some type of AFS in 2017, down from 24.0 percent in 2015 

and 24.9 percent in 2013. Use of transaction AFS remained 

more common than use of credit AFS in 2017. However, use 

of transaction AFS steadily declined from 2013, while use of 

credit AFS decreased from 2015 to 2017 after having increased from 2013 to 2015. The decrease in the use of credit 

AFS from 2015 to 2017 can be attributed primarily to changes 

in income and other characteristics of U.S. households over 

this period.48 

Alternative Financial Services Use by Household 

Characteristics 

Consistent with past survey results, AFS use differed across 

households. As shown in Table 6.2, AFS use in 2017 was 

more common among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger households, black and Hispanic 

households, working-age disabled households, and households with volatile income. 

Declines in AFS use over time were fairly widespread across 

segments of the population. For example, among households 

with less than $15,000 in income, 32.4 percent used AFS in 

2017, down from 38.6 percent in 2015 and 39.1 percent in 

2013. AFS use among younger households, black households, and working-age disabled households also decreased 

substantially from 2013 to 2017. 

Table 6.1 Alternative Financial Services Use in Past 12 Months by Year 

For all households, row percent 

Any AFS Transaction AFS Credit AFS 

Number of 

Year Households Used Did not use Unknown Used Did not use Unknown Used Did not use Unknown 

(1000s) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) 

2013 123,750 24.9 69.3 5.8 21.9 72.9 5.2 7.0 87.2 5.8 

2015 127,538 24.0 70.3 5.8 20.2 74.2 5.6 7.7 86.9 5.5 

2017 129,276 22.1 70.9 7.1 18.3 74.8 6.9 6.9 86.4 6.7 

47In this section, all estimates of AFS use are based on the 12 months before the survey. The 2017 survey asked about the same set of AFS as the 2013 and 2015 

surveys, except that the 2017 survey included a new question that asked households that had not used payday loans, refund anticipation loans, pawn shop loans, or 

auto title loans whether they had, in the past 12 months, “taken out any other types of loans or lines of credit from a payday lender, auto title lender, pawn shop, or 

check casher.” This question was designed to elicit use of installment loans from payday lenders, auto title lenders, pawn shops, or check cashers. Because only 0.5 

percent of households that were asked this question responded affirmatively, the 2017 estimates of AFS use and banking status in this report do not incorporate the 

responses to this question and are therefore comparable to the 2013 and 2015 estimates. Incorporating the responses to this question would lead to small changes 

in estimated credit AFS use, any AFS use, and the underbanked rate for 2017: the proportion of households that used credit AFS would increase from 6.9 percent to 

7.3 percent, the proportion of households that used any AFS would increase from 22.1 percent to 22.4 percent, and the underbanked rate would increase from 18.7 

percent to 19.0 percent. See Appendix 2 for additional details on changes to the survey instrument. 

48After accounting for changes in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2, the remaining decrease in the use of credit AFS from 2015 to 2017 was 

not statistically significant. 
 

Table 6.2 Alternative Financial Services Use by Selected Household Characteristics and Year 

For all households 

Characteristics 2013 

(Percent) 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

All 

Family income 

24.9 24.0 22.1 -1.9* 

Less than $15,000 39.1 38.6 32.4 -6.2* 

$15,000 to $30,000 33.1 31.0 29.7 -1.2 

$30,000 to $50,000 26.5 26.6 25.8 -0.9 

$50,000 to $75,000 20.9 21.0 20.5 -0.5 

At least $75,000 

Education 

13.8 13.5 13.5 -0.1 

No high school diploma 39.5 39.0 35.4 -3.6* 

High school diploma 28.7 27.8 25.3 -2.5* 

Some college 26.9 25.3 23.6 -1.8* 

College degree 

Age group 

14.9 15.0 14.9 -0.1 

15 to 24 years 41.5 37.8 34.6 -3.2 

25 to 34 years 33.6 31.1 28.0 -3.1* 

35 to 44 years 29.6 28.1 26.6 -1.5 

45 to 54 years 26.7 24.8 22.9 -1.9* 

55 to 64 years 20.9 21.8 20.7 -1.1 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

13.1 14.1 13.0 -1.1* 

Black 46.1 42.2 39.9 -2.3* 

Hispanic 40.3 38.5 36.0 -2.4* 

Asian 18.6 22.3 18.0 -4.3* 

White 18.1 17.3 15.5 -1.8* 

Other 

Disability status 

36.5 34.1 35.0 0.9 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 38.7 38.0 33.2 -4.8* 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

26.0 24.5 23.1 -1.4* 

Income was about the same each month 22.6 21.2 -1.4* 

Income varied somewhat from month to month 32.6 30.6 -1.9* 

Income varied a lot from month to month 40.3 36.4 -3.9* 

Notes: Monthly income volatility is not available for 2013. Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Table 

D.1 for estimates by other household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

40 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
41 

Table 6.3 Use of Specific Alternative Financial Services by Bank Account Ownership and Year 

For all households 

Specific AFS 2013 

(Percent) 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

A. All households 

Money orders 17.3 15.0 13.4 -1.6* 

Check cashing 6.5 6.5 5.9 -0.6* 

Remittances 3.7 3.7 3.4 -0.3 

Pawn shop loans 2.9 1.8 1.4 -0.4* 

Payday loans 2.0 2.0 1.7 -0.3* 

Refund anticipation loans 1.8 2.6 2.4 -0.2* 

Rent-to-own 1.5 1.8 1.4 -0.3* 

Auto title loans 0.9 1.3 1.4 0.0 

B. Unbanked households 

Money orders 47.3 43.2 39.5 -3.7* 

Check cashing 35.9 30.3 27.0 -3.3* 

Remittances 9.2 7.9 5.6 -2.3* 

Pawn shop loans 9.9 6.6 4.3 -2.3* 

Payday loans 2.7 3.6 2.9 -0.7 

Refund anticipation loans 3.8 4.5 3.3 -1.1 

Rent-to-own 4.5 5.0 3.6 -1.4* 

Auto title loans 1.7 2.3 2.2 -0.1 

C. Banked households 

Money orders 14.7 12.8 11.6 -1.2* 

Check cashing 4.1 4.7 4.4 -0.2 

Remittances 3.2 3.4 3.3 -0.1 

Pawn shop loans 2.3 1.5 1.2 -0.2* 

Payday loans 1.9 1.8 1.6 -0.2* 

Refund anticipation loans 1.6 2.5 2.3 -0.2 

Rent-to-own 1.2 1.5 1.3 -0.2* 

Auto title loans 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.1 

Note: Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. 
 

Alternative Financial Services Use by Bank Account 

Ownership 

AFS use continued to be much higher among unbanked 

households than banked households. As shown in Figures 

6.1 and 6.2, 51.3 percent of unbanked households used AFS 

in 2017, compared with 20.0 percent of banked households. 

Although AFS use was more common among unbanked 

households, the proportion that used AFS decreased substantially in recent years and is attributable to declines in the 

use of both transaction and credit AFS over this period. Use 

of AFS among banked households also decreased in recent 

years and is attributable almost entirely to the decline in the 

use of transaction AFS over this period. 

Table 6.3 shows use of specific AFS by bank account ownership and year. Overall, as shown in panel A, money orders 

remained the most commonly used AFS in 2017, followed by 

check cashing and remittances.49 However, use of nonbank 

money orders declined substantially in recent years, 

particularly among unbanked households. Use of nonbank 

check cashing also declined sharply among unbanked households: 27.0 percent used a nonbank check casher in 2017, 

down from 30.3 percent in 2015 and 35.9 percent in 2013. 

Figure 6.1 Alternative Financial Services Use in Past 12 

Months by Year, Unbanked Households (Percent) 

63.2 

57.3 

51.3 

60.5 

54.1 

48.0 

16.7 16.5 12.3 

Any AFS Transaction AFS Credit AFS 

2013 2015 2017 

Figure 6.2 Alternative Financial Services Use in Past 12 

Months by Year, Banked Households (Percent) 

21.7 21.4 20.0 18.6 17.6 16.3 

6.2 7.0 6.5 

Any AFS Transaction AFS Credit AFS 

2013 2015 2017 

49In addition to nonbank remittance use, the 2015 and 2017 surveys asked households whether they used a bank to send a remittance in the past 12 months. Similar 

proportions of households used banks to send remittances in 2015 (1.6 percent) and 2017 (1.8 percent). In both years, use of banks to send remittances was less 

common than use of nonbanks. 

42 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
43 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

7. Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies 

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

home or car repairs. The absence of savings can sometimes 

be a barrier to financial stability and resilience, particularly for 

consumers with uneven or low incomes. To gain insight into 

these issues, the 2015 and 2017 surveys included questions 

on whether households saved for unexpected expenses or 

emergencies and the methods they used. 

Specifically, households were asked whether they set aside 

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

unexpected expenses or emergencies, even if the funds were 

later spent.50 Households were prompted to consider only 

funds that could have been easily spent, if necessary, and 

not retirement or other long-term savings. Households that 

set aside money for this purpose were then asked where 

they kept the money, indicating one or more of the following 

methods: savings accounts; checking accounts; prepaid 

cards; other accounts such as certificates of deposit, brokerage accounts, or savings bonds; in the home, or with family 

or friends; buying something with the intent to pawn it or sell 

it later, if necessary; or other methods. 

Between 2015 and 2017, the proportion of households that 

saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 

12 months increased from 56.3 percent to 57.8 percent.51 

This increase can be attributed primarily to changes in income 

and other characteristics of U.S. households between 2015 

and 2017.52 

Savings Rates by Household Characteristics 

As in 2015, rates of saving for unexpected expenses or emergencies in 2017 varied by household characteristics (see Table 

7.1). For example, savings rates were lower among lower-income households, less-educated households, older households, 

black and Hispanic households, and working-age disabled 

households. Differences by income and education were especially pronounced. For instance, only 28.9 percent of households 

with less than $15,000 in income saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in 2017, compared with 73.8 percent of 

households with income of $75,000 or more. 

Mirroring the increase in the savings rate from 2015 to 2017 

at the national level, savings rates for many population segments increased over the same period, though the increases 

were often not statistically significant. The savings rate among 

Hispanic households increased considerably, from 42.5 percent in 2015 to 48.2 percent in 2017. Moreover, savings rates 

among younger households increased more than savings 

rates among older households. 

Savings Rates by Geography 

As in 2015, rates of saving for unexpected expenses or 

emergencies in 2017 varied across regions of the United 

States. Savings rates continued to be higher in the Midwest 

(60.9 percent in 2017) and West (60.4 percent) and lower in 

the Northeast (55.8 percent) and South (55.3 percent). The 

savings rate in the South increased from 52.1 percent in 2015 

to 55.3 percent in 2017, the largest increase among regions. 

(See Appendix Table E.1.) 

Figure 7.1 shows that savings rates varied widely across 

states in 2017, ranging from 40.5 percent in West Virginia 

to 74.1 percent in Utah. Certain areas experienced large 

changes in savings rates from 2015 to 2017. For example, the 

savings rate in Washington, DC, increased from 53.2 percent 

to 67.0 percent, while the savings rate in Maine decreased 

from 68.7 percent to 60.0 percent. (See Appendix Tables E.2 

and E.3 for detailed state- and MSA-level estimates and for 

selected confidence intervals.) 

Savings Methods 

Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for 

unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings and checking 

accounts were the most used savings methods in 2015 and 

2017: more than four in five (85.5 percent in 2017 and 84.9 

percent in 2015) kept savings in one of these accounts. In 

both years, about one in ten (10.5 percent) households that 

saved maintained savings in the home, or with family 

or friends. 

50The question allows for funds to be later spent because a household might have experienced an unexpected expense or emergency that required the household to 

draw on the money that had been saved. 

51The analysis presented in this section excludes 3,106 observations (representing roughly 12.1 million households) with missing information on whether the household 

saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies. 

52After accounting for changes in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2, the remaining increase in the savings rate from 2015 to 2017 was not 

statistically significant. 
 

Table 7.1 Rates of Saving for Unexpected Expenses or 

Emergencies by Selected Household Characteristics 

and Year 

For all households 

Characteristics 2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

All 

Family income 

56.3 57.8 1.4* 

Less than $15,000 30.8 28.9 -1.9 

$15,000 to $30,000 42.2 41.0 -1.2 

$30,000 to $50,000 53.2 54.7 1.4 

$50,000 to $75,000 63.6 63.7 0.1 

At least $75,000 

Education 

72.9 73.8 1.0 

No high school diploma 30.1 31.7 1.6 

High school diploma 47.2 48.6 1.4 

Some college 58.9 59.1 0.2 

College degree 

Age group 

69.4 70.0 0.6 

15 to 24 years 55.7 60.1 4.4* 

25 to 34 years 60.7 63.9 3.1* 

35 to 44 years 58.8 61.2 2.4* 

45 to 54 years 58.2 59.3 1.1 

55 to 64 years 56.4 56.8 0.4 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

50.1 50.6 0.5 

Black 45.6 45.7 0.1 

Hispanic 42.5 48.2 5.7* 

Asian 52.9 55.2 2.3 

White 61.3 62.4 1.1* 

Other 

Disability status 

56.2 53.1 -3.1 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 39.0 38.5 -0.5 

Not disabled, age 25 

to 64 

Monthly income 

volatility 

61.3 63.2 1.9* 

Income was about the 

same each month 56.3 56.9 0.7 

Income varied somewhat 

from month to month 58.3 63.0 4.7* 

Income varied a lot from 

month to month 51.3 52.5 1.2 

Notes: Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 

10 percent level. See Appendix Table E.1 for estimates by other household 

characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

Savings Methods by Household Characteristics 

As in 2015, the use of formal (e.g., savings or checking 

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

friends) savings methods varied by household characteristics 

in 2017 (see Table 7.2). For example, among households 

that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, lowerincome households, less-educated households, working-age 

disabled households, and households with volatile income 

were less likely to keep savings in a savings account and 

more likely to maintain savings in the home, or with family 

or friends. As with savings rates, differences in savings 

methods by income and education were considerable. For 

instance, among households that saved, 49.6 percent of 

households with less than $15,000 in income kept savings 

in a savings account in 2017, compared with 79.1 percent of 

households with income of $75,000 or more.53 Differences in 

savings methods by race and ethnicity were small relative to 

differences by income and education. 

53Among households that saved, 71.0 percent of households with less than $15,000 in income kept savings in a savings or checking account in 2017, compared with 

89.9 percent of households with income of $75,000 or more. 

44 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
45 

 

Figure 7.1 Rates of Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies by State, 2017 

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

ID

IL IN

IA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN MT

NE

NH

ND

OH

OR

PA

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

WI

WY

DC

AK

NJ

HI

RI

NM

OK

AR

LA

MS AL

GA

WV

NY

VA

IN

WA

OR

MT

WY

UT CO

AZ

WI

MN

PA

IA

MO

CT

NC

SC

NV KS

NE

TN

TX

KY

Less than 55.4 

55.4 to 58.8 

58.8 to 60.2 

60.2 to 66.3 

At least 66.3 

Figure 7.2 All Savings Methods for Households That Saved by Year (Percent) 

1.5 

1.4 

2.6 

2.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.5 

9.0 

9.5 

10.5 

10.5 

23.7 

24.5 

71.6 

70.1 

Unknown method 

Other method 

Intent to pawn or sell 

Prepaid card 

Other accounts 

In home, or with family or friends 

Checking account 

Savings account 

2015 2017 

Note: Bars sum to more than 100 percent because households were asked to select all savings methods used. 
 

Table 7.2 Savings Methods by Selected Household Characteristics, 2017 

For all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months, row percent 

Characteristics Savings account 

(Percent) 

Checking account 

(Percent) 

In home, or with 

family or friends 

(Percent) 

Prepaid card 

(Percent) 

All 

Family income 

71.6 23.7 10.5 0.3 

Less than $15,000 49.6 27.7 23.7 1.1 

$15,000 to $30,000 54.3 26.2 19.1 0.7 

$30,000 to $50,000 67.2 24.0 13.2 0.6 

$50,000 to $75,000 74.9 21.8 9.2 0.2 

At least $75,000 

Education 

79.1 23.3 6.1 0.1 

No high school diploma 52.8 26.0 21.6 1.1 

High school diploma 64.8 23.5 15.5 0.5 

Some college 70.1 21.9 12.1 0.4 

College degree 

Age group 

78.1 24.8 5.7 0.1 

15 to 24 years 67.7 18.9 16.5 1.0 

25 to 34 years 73.2 21.5 11.4 0.6 

35 to 44 years 74.3 21.3 11.0 0.2 

45 to 54 years 72.8 23.5 10.0 0.4 

55 to 64 years 71.8 24.8 10.8 0.1 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

67.7 27.9 7.9 0.2 

Black 67.1 21.5 14.2 1.0 

Hispanic 65.9 23.0 15.5 0.5 

Asian 75.4 31.7 3.0 0.1 

White 73.0 23.5 9.5 0.2 

Other 

Disability status 

62.8 27.6 20.5 1.2 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 58.7 25.9 18.4 0.9 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

74.2 22.5 10.2 0.3 

Income was about the same 

each month 72.9 23.7 9.4 0.3 

Income varied somewhat from 

month to month 69.1 23.8 13.5 0.5 

Income varied a lot from 

month to month 60.2 24.4 18.4 0.6 

Notes: Row percentages sum to more than 100 because households were asked to select all savings methods used. See Appendix Table E.4 for the full set of 

savings methods and for estimates by other household characteristics. 

46 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
Savings Rates and Methods by Banking Status 

As in 2015, unbanked households saved for unexpected 

expenses or emergencies at a much lower rate than underbanked and fully banked households. Figure 7.3 shows that 

17.4 percent of unbanked households saved for this purpose 

in 2017, compared with 56.3 percent of underbanked households and 61.6 percent of fully banked households. These 

estimates are similar to 2015.54 

Figure 7.3 Rates of Saving for Unexpected Expenses or 

Emergencies by Banking Status and Year 

Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

2015 2017 

20.2 17.4 

55.2 56.3 60.0 61.6 

Unbanked households generally saved using informal methods, while underbanked and fully banked households generally saved using formal methods, consistent with results from 

the 2015 survey. Figure 7.4 shows that, in 2017, unbanked 

households that saved primarily kept savings in the home, 

or with family or friends (66.8 percent).55 In contrast, underbanked and fully banked households that saved primarily 

used savings accounts. The vast majority of underbanked 

(80.2 percent) and fully banked (88.8 percent) households that 

saved kept savings in a savings or checking account. 

Although prepaid cards are generally thought of as transactional, some households, particularly the unbanked, used 

them to save. Among households that saved and used a 

prepaid card in the past 12 months, 23.8 percent of unbanked 

households kept savings on a prepaid card, compared with 

only 2.8 percent of underbanked households and 0.9 percent 

of fully banked households. 

Figure 7.4 Selected Savings Methods for Households That Saved by Banking Status, 2017 (Percent) 

2.0 2.2 

66.8 

10.1 

65.1 

23.9 

16.3 

0.4 

75.0 

24.1 

7.7 

0.1 

Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

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

Notes: Bars may sum to more than 100 percent because households were asked to select all savings methods used. See Appendix Table E.4 for the full set of 

savings methods by banking status. 

54The decline in the savings rate for unbanked households from 2015 to 2017 was no longer statistically significant after accounting for changes in the household 

characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2. 

55In addition, 12.8 percent of unbanked households selected other method in 2017, which is substantially higher than the percentage of underbanked (3.9 percent) and 

fully banked (2.0 percent) households that selected other method. (See Appendix Table E.4.) 

47 
48 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

8. Credit 

Building on the 2015 survey, which introduced questions 

about small-dollar bank credit, the 2017 survey included new 

questions to capture the full range of credit products that are 

likely reported to the major credit bureaus (i.e., mainstream 

credit). Specifically, the 2015 survey asked households 

whether, in the past 12 months, they had a credit card from 

Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover (i.e., credit 

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

personal loan). Additional questions in the 2017 survey asked 

households whether, in the past 12 months, they had a store 

credit card; an auto loan; a student loan; a mortgage, home 

equity loan, or home equity line of credit (HELOC); or other 

personal loans or lines of credit from a company other than a 

bank (i.e., other mainstream nonbank).56 

A household is considered to have used mainstream credit if it used any of the above credit products in the past 12 

Figure 8.1 Use of Mainstream Credit Products, 2017 (Percent) 

Credit card 

Store credit card 

Mortgage, home equity loan, or HELOC 

Auto loan 

Student loan 

Bank personal loan 

Other mainstream nonbank 

No mainstream credit 

months. Households that did not have mainstream credit in 

the past 12 months likely did not have a credit score, which 

could make it more difficult to obtain mainstream credit 

should a credit need arise. 

The 2017 survey also retained questions from the 2015 survey 

that provide information on credit applications and potential 

indicators of creditworthiness (i.e., credit characteristics). 

Specifically, households were asked whether, in the past 12 

months, they applied for a credit card or bank personal loan 

(i.e., applied); were denied a credit card or bank personal 

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

denied); thought about applying for a credit card or bank 

personal loan but did not because they thought they might 

be turned down (i.e., felt discouraged about applying); or fell 

behind on bills. 

19.7 

2.1 

6.9 

16.6 

32.3 

33.8 

41.6 

68.7 

56Other mainstream nonbank credit includes finance company loans and purchase loans or lines of credit from retailers. This category does not include credit AFS. 
49 

Mainstream Credit Product Use 

Figure 8.1 presents the shares of households in 2017 that 

used each mainstream credit product.57 Credit cards were the 

most common (68.7 percent of households had a credit card 

from Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover, and 

41.6 percent had a store credit card), followed by mortgages, home equity loans, or HELOCs; and auto loans. Student 

loans, bank personal loans, and other mainstream nonbank 

credit were much less common. 

Mainstream Credit Product Use by Banking Status 

and Household Characteristics 

Table 8.1 shows the shares of households in 2017 that used 

each mainstream credit product by banking status and household characteristics. Use of each mainstream credit product 

was much lower among unbanked households, relative to 

underbanked and fully banked households. For example, 

only 7.2 percent of unbanked households had a credit card, 

compared with 60.0 percent of underbanked households and 

76.3 percent of fully banked households. Use of mainstream 

credit products also varied widely across socioeconomic and 

demographic groups. In general, lower-income households, 

less-educated households, the youngest and oldest households, black and Hispanic households, and working-age 

disabled households were less likely to use most mainstream 

credit products. 

Credit usage patterns varied somewhat by product type. For 

example, while similar shares of black and white households 

had student loans, use of the remaining mainstream credit 

products was generally lower among black households. 

Credit Characteristics by Banking Status and 

Household Characteristics 

Table 8.2 presents the proportions of households in 2017 that 

applied for a credit card or bank personal loan by banking 

status and selected household characteristics. Overall, 14.1 

percent of households applied for a credit card or bank 

personal loan in the past 12 months. Unbanked households applied at a substantially lower rate (3.0 percent) than 

underbanked (18.0 percent) and fully banked households 

(14.0 percent). Certain segments of the population, including 

lower-income households, less-educated households, older 

households, and black and Hispanic households, also applied 

at lower rates than other segments. 

Table 8.2 also shows the shares of households in 2017 that 

applied for a credit card or bank personal loan and were denied, that felt discouraged about applying, or that fell behind 

on bills. Overall, 19.5 percent of households were denied a 

credit card or bank personal loan (conditional on having applied), 5.6 percent felt discouraged about applying, and 14.5 

percent fell behind on bills. Lower-income households, working-age disabled households, and households with volatile 

income were more likely to have been denied (conditional on 

having applied), to have felt discouraged about applying, or to 

have fallen behind on bills. 

Changes in Credit Card Ownership and Credit 

Characteristics 

Table 8.3 shows that credit card ownership and a few of the 

credit characteristics changed somewhat from 2015 to 2017. 

Credit card ownership increased slightly from 66.5 percent in 

2015 to 68.7 percent in 2017.58 The share of households that 

felt discouraged about applying for a credit card or bank personal loan declined from 2015 to 2017. This decline can be 

attributed primarily to changes in income and other characteristics of U.S. households between 2015 and 2017.59 Finally, 

the share of households that fell behind on bills decreased. 

Share of Households With No Mainstream Credit by 

Banking Status and Household Characteristics 

A positive credit history can promote financial resiliency and 

overall financial health. Households with an insufficient credit 

history, however, likely face substantially reduced access to 

mainstream credit. A positive credit history also facilitates 

large purchases that may not be feasible without credit, such 

as a house or car. Finally, lack of a credit history may affect 

employment and rental housing opportunities, as prospective 

employers and landlords often rely on credit reports as part of 

the application process. 

As shown in Table 8.1, one in five (19.7 percent) households 

in 2017 had no mainstream credit in the past 12 months and 

likely did not have a credit score. Households without a credit 

score may be “credit invisible,” meaning that no one in the 

household has a record at one of the credit bureaus. Alternatively, a household member may have a record at one of 

the credit bureaus but not have sufficient credit history to be 

scored. At least one active trade line in the past six months is 

generally required to generate a credit score. 

57The analysis presented in this section excludes 3,622 observations (representing roughly 14.2 million households) with missing information on whether the household 

used one or more mainstream credit products; used credit AFS; applied for, was denied, or felt discouraged about applying for a credit card or bank personal loan; or 

fell behind on bills. In Table 8.3, the 2015 estimates are identical to those in the 2015 report. 

58The share of households with a bank personal loan was 9.8 percent in 2015 and 6.9 percent in 2017; however, these estimates are not necessarily comparable across 

time because of changes in question wording and placement between the 2015 and 2017 surveys. It is possible that some respondents included more products as 

personal loans or lines of credit from a bank, such as home equity loans or HELOCs, in the 2015 survey than in the 2017 survey. See Appendix 2 for additional details. 

59After accounting for changes in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2, the remaining decline from 2015 to 2017 in the share of households that 

felt discouraged about applying was not statistically significant. 
50 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Table 8.1 Use of Mainstream Credit Products by Banking Status and Selected Household Characteristics, 2017 

For all households, row percent 

Characteristics Credit card 

(Percent) 

Store 

credit card 

(Percent) 

Mortgage, 

home 

equity 

loan, or 

HELOC 

(Percent) 

Auto loan 

(Percent) 

Student 

loan 

(Percent) 

Bank 

personal 

loan 

(Percent) 

Other 

mainstream 

nonbank 

(Percent) 

No 

mainstream 

credit 

(Percent) 

All 

Banking status 

68.7 41.6 33.8 32.3 16.6 6.9 2.1 19.7 

Unbanked 7.2 4.0 3.4 5.7 4.5 1.2 1.0 80.2 

Underbanked 60.0 37.9 26.3 35.5 20.6 8.4 4.3 21.9 

Fully banked 

Family income 

76.3 45.7 38.5 33.7 16.5 7.0 1.6 14.1 

Less than $15,000 31.3 16.7 6.7 9.4 8.4 2.1 1.4 56.2 

$15,000 to $30,000 48.6 25.8 13.9 16.0 9.3 3.4 1.8 35.8 

$30,000 to $50,000 64.1 37.2 23.7 28.0 14.0 5.6 2.3 20.1 

$50,000 to $75,000 77.0 47.4 37.0 37.7 17.7 7.6 2.5 11.2 

At least $75,000 

Education 

88.8 56.7 56.2 47.0 23.6 10.5 2.1 4.3 

No high school diploma 33.3 19.3 12.8 14.2 2.9 2.6 1.7 53.0 

High school diploma 57.7 36.0 25.8 27.2 8.4 5.9 1.9 28.1 

Some college 68.4 42.9 33.5 34.8 18.1 7.6 2.5 17.2 

College degree 

Age group 

86.0 50.3 45.3 38.6 24.7 8.2 1.9 7.2 

15 to 24 years 56.1 26.2 12.8 31.4 31.4 4.5 2.2 24.6 

25 to 34 years 67.9 35.4 29.7 40.4 32.8 7.4 2.1 18.5 

35 to 44 years 69.1 41.3 43.0 42.0 24.5 8.6 2.5 18.0 

45 to 54 years 69.3 45.7 45.1 39.6 16.4 8.2 2.4 17.9 

55 to 64 years 69.6 45.7 39.4 29.8 10.0 7.6 2.2 19.2 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

70.6 43.0 22.3 17.2 2.8 4.5 1.4 22.4 

Black 47.9 28.2 19.3 23.7 17.8 5.7 2.8 36.0 

Hispanic 53.9 35.3 24.6 29.0 14.3 5.2 1.4 31.5 

Asian 80.8 42.5 36.1 32.5 14.0 5.6 0.9 13.8 

White 75.3 45.7 38.5 34.7 17.0 7.6 2.1 14.4 

Other 

Disability status 

52.2 31.2 28.1 32.7 15.6 8.5 2.9 28.3 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 43.1 27.6 22.9 21.1 10.5 6.0 3.2 40.4 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

72.7 44.3 41.8 40.1 21.8 8.2 2.2 15.3 

Income was about the 

same each month 69.2 41.5 33.5 31.4 15.7 6.1 1.8 19.9 

Income varied somewhat 

from month to month 68.2 43.6 36.8 36.7 20.1 9.7 2.8 18.1 

Income varied a lot from 

month to month 

Nativity 

62.8 35.7 28.1 31.0 19.2 9.8 4.2 23.5 

U.S.-born 69.8 42.5 34.9 33.3 17.5 7.3 2.2 18.5 

Foreign-born citizen 70.2 42.7 35.3 28.8 14.6 5.4 1.2 19.9 

Foreign-born noncitizen 53.3 28.9 18.6 23.5 7.1 3.2 1.5 35.9 

Note: See Appendix Table F.1 for estimates by other household characteristics. 
51 

Table 8.2 Credit Characteristics by Banking Status and Selected Household Characteristics, 2017 

For all households, row percent 

Characteristics Applied 

(Percent) 

Denied 

(Percent) 

Felt discouraged 

about applying 

(Percent) 

Fell behind 

on bills 

(Percent) 

Denied, conditional 

on applying 

(Percent) 

All 

Banking status 

14.1 2.8 5.6 14.5 19.5 

Unbanked 3.0 1.7 8.5 39.9 NA 

Underbanked 18.0 6.2 13.2 29.1 34.2 

Fully banked 

Family income 

14.0 1.9 3.3 8.3 13.7 

Less than $15,000 6.5 2.4 8.5 27.3 36.7 

$15,000 to $30,000 8.4 3.1 7.3 22.9 36.7 

$30,000 to $50,000 11.6 3.1 7.0 16.7 26.3 

$50,000 to $75,000 15.2 2.9 5.4 12.1 18.8 

At least $75,000 

Education 

20.2 2.5 3.1 6.3 12.4 

No high school diploma 5.4 1.5 6.2 22.3 28.3 

High school diploma 10.2 2.1 5.7 17.3 20.5 

Some college 14.5 3.8 7.3 18.1 26.2 

College degree 

Age group 

18.9 2.7 4.0 7.6 14.2 

15 to 24 years 19.0 5.5 9.8 20.5 28.8 

25 to 34 years 19.9 4.1 9.2 18.0 20.8 

35 to 44 years 16.9 3.5 7.3 19.0 20.5 

45 to 54 years 16.1 3.5 6.2 17.2 22.0 

55 to 64 years 12.4 2.1 4.1 13.6 17.2 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity 

7.4 0.7 1.9 6.5 9.3 

Black 10.2 3.9 10.1 27.2 37.6 

Hispanic 12.3 3.2 7.0 18.9 25.7 

Asian 20.7 2.7 3.9 7.2 12.9 

White 14.8 2.4 4.5 11.3 16.3 

Other 

Disability status 

12.6 4.4 7.5 24.1 NA 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 11.3 3.7 9.0 30.9 32.8 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 

Monthly income volatility 

16.9 3.2 6.3 14.8 19.1 

Income was about the same each month 13.1 2.3 4.6 11.9 17.7 

Income varied somewhat from month to month 18.0 4.1 8.5 21.0 22.6 

Income varied a lot from month to month 

Nativity 

17.9 5.5 11.4 35.5 30.6 

U.S.-born 14.0 2.6 5.6 14.5 18.9 

Foreign-born citizen 15.1 2.8 4.9 12.7 18.4 

Foreign-born noncitizen 15.0 4.2 6.1 16.5 27.7 

Notes: NA indicates that the sample size was too small to produce a precise estimate. See Appendix Tables F.5 – F.9 for estimates by other household 

characteristics. 
52 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Table 8.3 Credit Card Ownership and Credit Characteristics by Year 

For all households 

2015 

(Percent) 

2017 

(Percent) 

Difference 

(2017-2015) 

Credit card 

Applied 

Denied 

Felt discouraged about applying 

Fell behind on bills 

Denied, conditional on applying 

66.5 

13.9 

2.8 

6.1 

16.9 

20.0 

68.7 

14.1 

2.8 

5.6 

14.5 

19.5 

2.2* 

0.2 

0.0 

-0.5* 

-2.4* 

-0.5 

Notes: Asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. See Appendix Tables F.4 – F.9 for estimates by banking status and 

household characteristics and for selected confidence intervals. 

Figure 8.2 No Mainstream Credit by Household Race and Ethnicity and Income Level, 2017 (Percent) 

3.5 

6.8 

9.5 

8.5 

18.5 

18.9 

16.2 

28.5 

27.9 

29.1 

47.9 

48.7 

48.2 

63.4 

67.8 

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: To simplify the fgure, estimates for Asian households and for households of other races and ethnicities are not shown. 
53 

 

 

Differences in the share of households with no mainstream 

credit by banking status were striking. Four in five (80.2 

percent) unbanked households had no mainstream credit, 

compared with 21.9 percent of underbanked households 

and 14.1 percent of fully banked households. The share 

of households with no mainstream credit also varied 

substantially across socioeconomic and demographic groups. 

Lower-income households, less-educated households, black 

and Hispanic households, working-age disabled households, 

and foreign-born, noncitizen households were more likely 

not to have mainstream credit. Differences by income and 

education were especially pronounced. For example, 56.2 

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

had no mainstream credit, compared with only 4.3 percent 

of households with income of $75,000 or more. Similarly, 

53.0 percent of households with no high school diploma had 

no mainstream credit, compared with only 7.2 percent of 

households with a college degree. 

Differences by race and ethnicity were also substantial: 36.0 

percent of black households and 31.5 percent of Hispanic 

households had no mainstream credit, compared with 14.4 

percent of white households. As shown in Figure 8.2, at all 

income levels, black and Hispanic households were more 

Figure 8.3 No Mainstream Credit by State, 2017 (Percent) 

likely not to have mainstream credit. Racial and ethnic differences in bank account ownership and socioeconomic and 

demographic characteristics beyond income can account for 

some, but not all, of the racial and ethnic differences in the 

likelihood of not having mainstream credit. 

The youngest and oldest age groups were more likely not 

to have mainstream credit, although after accounting for 

differences in income across age groups, households aged 15 

to 24 years were less likely than the other age groups not to 

have mainstream credit. 

Share of Households With No Mainstream Credit 

by Geography 

The share of households with no mainstream credit varied 

across regions of the United States. Almost one in four (23.8 

percent) households in the South had no mainstream credit, 

compared with 18.2 percent in the Northeast, 17.3 percent in 

the West, and 16.5 percent in the Midwest. Figure 8.3 shows 

that the share of households with no mainstream credit varied 

widely across states, ranging from 8.1 percent in Minnesota 

to 37.7 percent in Mississippi. (See Appendix Tables F.2 and 

F.3 for detailed state- and MSA-level estimates.) 

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

ID

IL IN

IA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN MT

NE

NH

ND

OH

OR

PA

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

WI

WY

DC

AK

NJ

HI

RI

NM

OH

OK

AR

LA

MS AL

GA

FL

WV

WY NY

AZ

ND

MO

NC

SC

NV KS

TN

TX

KY

Less than 14.0 

14.0 to 16.4 

16.4 to 20.0 

20.0 to 24.0 

At least 24.0 
 

Figure 8.4 Interest in Having Credit Among Households With No Mainstream Credit, 2017 (Percent) 

76.3 

10.1 

6.4 

2.5 

15.8 

Stayed current on bills 

Used credit AFS 

Felt discouraged about applying 

Applied 

Showed interest in having credit 

Figure 8.5 Interest in Having Credit Among Households With No Mainstream Credit by Household Race and Ethnicity, 2017 

(Percent) 

79.7 

76.2 

68.5 

9.8 

8.4 

12.5 

4.7 

8.2 

8.8 

2.4 

3.3 

2.2 

14.1 

16.2 

19.6 

Stayed current on bills 

Used credit AFS 

Felt discouraged about applying 

Applied 

Showed interest in having credit 

Black Hispanic White 

Note: To simplify the fgure, estimates for Asian households and for households of other races and ethnicities are not shown. 

54 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
55 

Interest in Having Credit Among Households With 

No Mainstream Credit 

Two reasons why households may not have mainstream 

credit are that they are not interested in having credit or that 

they do not appear creditworthy. For the purposes of this 

report, we consider a household to have shown interest in 

having credit if the household applied for a credit card or 

bank personal loan, felt discouraged about applying, or used 

credit AFS.60 

As indicated in Figure 8.4, approximately one in six (15.8 

percent) households with no mainstream credit in 2017 

showed interest in having credit. Among households with 

no mainstream credit, 2.5 percent applied for a credit card 

or bank personal loan, 6.4 percent felt discouraged about 

applying, and 10.1 percent used credit AFS.61 

Staying current on bills is one potential indicator of 

creditworthiness. As shown in Figure 8.4, about three in four 

(76.3 percent) households with no mainstream credit stayed 

current on bills in the past 12 months. Among households 

with no mainstream credit that showed interest in having 

credit, roughly half (46.7 percent) stayed current on bills. 

While staying current on bills is an imperfect measure of 

creditworthiness, it nevertheless provides some insight into 

these households’ financial situation. 

Figure 8.5 shows interest in having credit and the likelihood 

of staying current on bills among households with no 

mainstream credit in 2017 by race and ethnicity. Among 

these households, 19.6 percent of black households showed 

interest in having credit, compared with 16.2 percent of 

Hispanic households and 14.1 percent of white households.62 

Among households with no mainstream credit, the share that 

stayed current on bills was similar for Hispanic and white 

households, while the share was lower for black households. 

Unmet Demand for Mainstream Small-Dollar Credit 

Households may use certain credit products, including 

credit cards, bank personal loans, and credit AFS, to meet 

their small-dollar credit needs. Some households may have 

small-dollar credit needs that are not fully met by mainstream 

financial institutions. As in the 2015 report, we classify a 

household as having unmet demand for mainstream smalldollar credit if the household applied for and was denied a 

credit card or bank personal loan, felt discouraged about 

applying, or used credit AFS. Applying this convention, 12.9 

percent of households had unmet demand for mainstream 

small-dollar credit in 2017, compared with 13.7 percent in 

2015. The decline in the share of households with unmet 

demand from 2015 to 2017 is consistent with the declines 

in the shares of households that used credit AFS or that felt 

discouraged about applying for a credit card or bank personal 

loan. Among households with unmet demand, 57.2 percent 

stayed current on bills in 2017, up slightly from 52.5 percent 

in 2015. 

60This definition is an approximation and likely does not capture all households that have shown interest in having credit. For example, households may have applied 

for or have felt discouraged about applying for other credit products, such as auto loans or student loans. 

61For comparison, 24.8 percent of households with mainstream credit applied for a credit card or bank personal loan, felt discouraged about applying, or used credit 

AFS: 17.0 percent applied for a credit card or bank personal loan, 5.4 percent felt discouraged about applying, and 6.8 percent used credit AFS. 

62The difference between Hispanic and white households in the share that showed interest in having credit was not statistically significant. Further, after accounting 

for differences between black and white households in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2, the remaining difference between black and white 

households in the share that showed interest in having credit was not statistically significant. 
56 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

9. How Households Conduct Their Financial Transactions in a Typical Month 

As in the 2015 survey, the 2017 survey included a number 

of questions about the ways households pay bills (for things 

like mortgage, rent, utilities, or child care) and receive income 

(from work, retirement, government benefits, or other sources) 

in a typical month. The goal of these questions was to learn 

more about the extent to which households use bank and 

other methods to meet their financial transactions needs in a 

typical month.63 

For the purposes of this report, the following methods of 

paying bills are classified as bank methods: electronic payment from a bank account, personal check drawn on a bank, 

debit card linked to a bank account, credit card, and cashier’s 

check or money order purchased at a bank. Other bill payment methods include nonbank money orders, prepaid cards, 

and cash. 

Similarly, the following methods of receiving income are classified as bank methods: direct deposit into a bank account, 

and paper check or money order if the household had a 

bank account and did not go to a nonbank check casher in 

a typical month. Other methods of receiving income include 

cash, direct deposit onto a prepaid card, and paper check or 

money order (for households that were unbanked or that used 

a nonbank check casher to get the funds).64 

National Estimates 

The great majority of U.S. households used bank methods to 

pay bills in a typical month, consistent with the fact that most 

U.S. households have a bank account.65 As illustrated in Figure 9.1, the most widely used method in 2017 was electronic 

payment from a bank account (68.4 percent). Use of personal 

checks was also common (61.3 percent), while use of other 

bill payment methods, such as cash, nonbank money orders, 

and prepaid cards, was substantially lower. Overall, 93.8 percent of households used at least one bank method to pay bills 

in a typical month, and 78.2 percent used only bank methods 

(i.e., they used a bank method and did not use cash, nonbank 

money orders, prepaid cards, or other). 

Figure 9.2 shows methods used to receive income in a typical 

month. The most prevalent method was by far direct deposit 

into a bank account (86.7 percent). Approximately one in four 

households (27.6 percent) received income by paper check 

or money order. Of the households that used this method, 

7.0 percent (or 1.9 percent of all households) used a nonbank 

check casher to get the funds in a typical month.66 Less commonly used ways of receiving income were cash and direct 

deposit onto a prepaid card. Overall, 93.2 percent of households used at least one bank method to receive income in a 

typical month, and 84.1 percent used only bank methods. 

63For the 2017 survey, a few changes were made to the questions on bill payment and income receipt methods. Retirement was explicitly added as a source of 

income in the introduction to the questions on income receipt. To accommodate new questions in the 2017 survey, a question that asked households to choose the 

primary (i.e., most common) method of bill payment in a typical month was dropped, and the remaining questions on bill payment and income receipt methods were 

streamlined. Finally, in the 2015 and 2017 surveys households could volunteer that they did not pay bills, but in the 2017 survey households that did not select a bill 

payment method and that did not volunteer that they did not pay bills were explicitly asked whether they paid bills (a similar question was asked for income receipt). 

See Appendix 2 for additional details. 

64The distinction between bank and other methods is not always straightforward. The approach used in this report is to classify a method as a bank method if a 

bank is likely to be directly involved in the transaction, at least from the household’s perspective. Use of prepaid cards to pay bills or receive income is treated as 

other because, in most cases, consumers do not obtain the card directly from a bank. Similarly, use of cash to pay bills or receive income is considered to be other, 

although, in some cases, the cash may have been obtained directly from a bank account (particularly among banked households). Unbanked households that received 

income through paper check or money order and did not typically use a nonbank check casher are also classified as other, although it is possible that in at least some 

of these cases, the households may have gone to a bank to receive the funds. 

65The analysis presented in this section excludes 4,514 observations (representing 17.8 million households) with missing information on use of prepaid cards or 

nonbank money orders or check cashers in the past 12 months, on methods used to pay bills or receive income, or where the household indicated that it did not pay 

bills or receive income in a typical month. 

66This does not necessarily mean that only 1.9 percent of households used a nonbank check casher in a typical month. Households may use nonbank check cashers 

to handle paper checks or money orders that they do not think of as income. 
57 

Figure 9.1 Methods Used to Pay Bills in a Typical Month, 2017 (Percent) 

78.2 

93.8 

0.5 

1.2 

2.3 

6.9 

15.9 

5.7 

24.8 

47.3 

61.3 

68.4 

Only bank methods 

Any bank method 

Did not select a method 

Other 

Prepaid card 

Nonbank money order 

Cash 

Bank money order 

Credit card 

Debit card 

Personal check 

Electronic payment from bank 

Figure 9.2 Methods Used to Receive Income in a Typical Month, 2017 (Percent) 

84.1 

93.2 

1.6 

1.9 

1.8 

3.4 

7.9 

27.6 

86.7 

Only bank methods 

Any bank method 

Did not select a method 

Nonbank check casher 

Other 

Direct deposit onto prepaid card 

Cash 

Paper check or money order 

Direct deposit into bank account 
58 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

While the 2017 estimates in Figures 9.1 and 9.2 are qualitatively similar to the estimates presented in the 2015 report, 

changes to the administration of the survey instrument make 

direct comparisons difficult.67 As shown in Appendix Table 

G.1, the rank ordering of bill payment methods by prevalence 

was unchanged from 2015 to 2017, and the same was true of 

income receipt methods.68 However, use of paper instruments 

to pay bills and receive income declined somewhat between 

2015 and 2017, while use of electronic methods increased. 

Although personal checks remained the second-most prevalent method of paying bills, the proportion of households 

that used this method decreased from 2015 to 2017. Over the 

same period, the proportions that used electronic payments 

from a bank account, debit cards, or credit cards increased.69 

Likewise, the proportion of households that received income 

by paper check or money order decreased from 2015 to 2017, 

while the proportion that received income through direct deposit into a bank account increased.70 

Bill Payment and Income Receipt Methods by 

Household Characteristics 

As in 2015, most U.S. households used banks to handle their 

financial transactions in a typical month, although certain 

segments of the population were less likely to do so.71 Panel 

A of Table 9.1 illustrates differences by income in the methods 

households used to pay bills in 2017. Lower-income households were substantially less likely to use bank methods and 

more likely to use other methods, such as cash and nonbank 

money orders. Most notably, use of electronic payments from 

a bank account varied sharply by income, ranging from 37.8 

percent of households with less than $15,000 in income to 

85.6 percent of households with income of $75,000 or more. 

Moreover, 33.7 percent of households with less than $15,000 

in income paid bills in cash, compared with only 7.0 percent 

of households with income of $75,000 or more. 

Lower-income households were also substantially less likely 

to receive income using bank methods. As shown in panel B 

of Table 9.1, while direct deposit into a bank account was the 

most prevalent method of receiving income at each income 

level, its use was more common among higher-income households. Close to 70 percent (69.2 percent) of households with 

less than $15,000 in income received income through direct 

deposit into a bank account, compared with 94.9 percent of 

households with income of $75,000 or more. The proportion 

of households that received income by paper check or money 

order was fairly similar across income groups. However, 

lower-income households were more likely to use a nonbank 

check casher to get those funds. 

Examining differences across other household characteristics 

revealed that overall use of bank methods to pay bills and 

receive income in a typical month was less prevalent among 

less-educated households, younger households, and black 

and Hispanic households. Even within these groups, the proportion of households that used bank methods was still high 

relative to the proportions that used other methods.72 

67Specifically, in the 2015 and 2017 surveys households could volunteer that they did not pay bills, but in the 2017 survey households that did not select a bill 

payment method and that did not volunteer that they did not pay bills were explicitly asked whether they paid bills (a similar question was asked for income receipt). 

The analysis in the 2015 report excludes households that volunteered that they did not pay bills or receive income, while the analysis in this report also excludes 

households that indicated that they did not pay bills or receive income when explicitly asked. Moreover, as discussed in Appendix 1 of the 2015 report, because of 

an issue with the administration of the 2015 survey instrument, information on use of prepaid cards to receive income is missing for many unbanked households. The 

2015 estimates of income received through direct deposit onto a prepaid card or using other methods incorporate imputed values for these households. 

68To more directly compare the 2015 and 2017 estimates, in Appendix Table G.1 households that indicated that they did not pay bills or receive income when explicitly 

asked are not excluded from the 2017 estimates, as they are elsewhere in this report. 

69Based on the 2017 estimates shown in Appendix Table G.1, use of personal checks to pay bills decreased from 61.2 percent in 2015 to 59.8 percent in 2017. In 

contrast, use of electronic payments from a bank account increased from 64.3 percent to 66.5 percent, use of debit cards increased from 39.7 percent to 46.2 percent, 

and use of credit cards increased from 21.3 percent to 24.3 percent. 

70Based on the 2017 estimates shown in Appendix Table G.1, the proportion of households that received income by paper check or money order decreased from 29.1 

percent in 2015 to 26.7 percent in 2017, while the proportion that received income through direct deposit into a bank account increased from 81.3 percent to 84.0 

percent. 

71Differences across households in the methods used to pay bills and receive income may be attributable to a number of factors, some of which may be outside of the 

household’s control, such as the ways employers disburse earnings (e.g., availability of direct deposit or use of payroll cards) or in the types of payment instruments 

required by payees. 

72See Appendix Tables G.4 – G.11 for estimated use of bill payment and income receipt methods in a typical month by selected household characteristics. As 

with household income, there are differences by other household characteristics in the specific methods used to pay bills and receive income. For example, older 

households were less likely than younger households to pay bills electronically from a bank account and more likely to pay bills by personal check. 
59 

Table 9.1 Methods Used to Pay Bills and Receive Income in a Typical Month by Household Income Level, 2017 

For all households that paid bills and received income in a typical month, column percent 

All Less than 

$15,000 

$15,000 to 

$30,000 

$30,000 to 

$50,000 

$50,000 to 

$75,000 

At least 

$75,000 

A. Paying bills (Percent) 

Electronic payment from bank 68.4 37.8 48.6 62.4 75.2 85.6 

Personal check 61.3 44.1 56.1 62.2 64.4 66.6 

Debit card 47.3 36.7 44.6 50.5 53.1 46.9 

Credit card 24.8 13.4 16.0 21.0 25.6 33.7 

Bank money order 5.7 10.0 8.4 6.5 4.8 3.3 

Cash 15.9 33.7 26.3 19.1 11.1 7.0 

Nonbank money order 6.9 17.4 13.0 8.3 4.3 1.6 

Prepaid card 2.3 6.1 4.3 2.6 1.3 0.5 

Other 1.2 2.9 2.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 

Did not select a method 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.2 

Any bank method 93.8 75.2 87.8 94.4 98.2 99.3 

Only bank methods 78.2 52.2 64.0 74.6 84.1 90.8 

B. Receiving income (Percent) 

Direct deposit into bank account 86.7 69.2 76.0 85.5 91.0 94.9 

Paper check or money order 27.6 23.8 28.7 28.7 27.3 27.9 

Cash 7.9 12.4 10.3 8.8 6.7 5.7 

Direct deposit onto prepaid card 3.4 8.7 5.0 3.3 2.1 1.8 

Other 1.8 4.4 2.3 1.7 1.2 1.3 

Nonbank check casher 1.9 4.4 4.5 2.3 0.9 0.5 

Did not select a method 1.6 4.6 2.4 1.2 1.3 0.8 

Any bank method 93.2 75.8 86.0 93.9 97.4 98.8 

Only bank methods 84.1 66.4 76.5 83.6 88.4 90.5 

Bill Payment and Income Receipt Methods by 

Banking Status 

As in 2015, unbanked households in 2017 paid bills and received income primarily using methods outside of the banking 

system. As shown in Table 9.2, approximately two-thirds 

of unbanked households paid bills in 2017 using cash, the 

most prevalent method. Nonbank money orders and prepaid 

cards were the next two most prevalent methods of paying 

bills. Unbanked households also received income in a variety 

of ways, but the most prevalent method was paper check 

or money order, followed by cash and direct deposit onto a 

prepaid card.73 

Underbanked households, on the other hand, used banks 

extensively to handle their financial transactions. In fact, 94.0 

percent of underbanked households used at least one bank 

method to pay bills, a share that is almost as high as the 

estimate for fully banked households (98.4 percent). Electronic payment from a bank account was the most widely 

used method of paying bills among both underbanked and 

fully banked households. Relative to the fully banked, use of 

personal checks was lower among underbanked households 

and use of debit cards was higher. 

The key difference between underbanked and fully banked 

households is that, in addition to using bank methods, the 

underbanked also widely used other methods to pay bills. 

Use of cash or nonbank money orders was substantially 

higher among underbanked households, compared with the 

fully banked.74 As a result, the proportion of households that 

used only bank methods to pay bills was much lower among 

the underbanked. 

73About half of the unbanked households that received income by paper check or money order (or 23.7 percent of all unbanked households) used a nonbank check 

casher to get the funds in a typical month. The remaining unbanked households that received income by paper check or money order did not use a nonbank check 

casher to get those funds. We do not directly observe how these households obtained the funds from the income received by paper check or money order. 

74By definition, fully banked households did not use nonbank money orders (or any other AFS asked about in the survey) in the past 12 months. 
60 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Underbanked households were also almost as likely as fully 

banked households to use bank methods to receive income 

in a typical month. Direct deposit into a bank account was by 

far the most prevalent method of receiving income, both for 

underbanked and fully banked households. 

Patterns were similar when looking at bill payment together 

with income receipt. As shown in Table 9.3, unbanked households primarily operated outside of the banking system, using 

cash, transaction AFS, prepaid cards, or other methods. In 

contrast, almost all (99.0 percent) underbanked households 

used at least one bank method to pay bills or receive income 

in a typical month, and nearly half (48.5 percent) used only 

bank methods to pay bills and receive income. These findings 

confirm that unbanked households did not participate in the 

mainstream financial system to the same extent as underbanked households, at least when handling these financial 

transactions. 

Table 9.2 Methods Used to Pay Bills and Receive Income in a Typical Month by Banking Status, 2017 

For all households that paid bills and received income in a typical month, column percent 

All Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

A. Paying bills (Percent) 

Electronic payment from bank 68.4 2.5 67.2 73.0 

Personal check 61.3 1.2 52.0 67.8 

Debit card 47.3 3.1 63.1 45.9 

Credit card 24.8 8.4 25.0 25.8 

Bank money order 5.7 13.0 11.8 3.5 

Cash 15.9 66.1 26.2 9.8 

Nonbank money order 6.9 39.1 24.2 0.0 

Prepaid card 2.3 22.1 4.0 0.5 

Other 1.2 8.0 1.3 0.7 

Did not select a method 0.5 3.3 0.3 0.4 

Any bank method 93.8 22.7 94.0 98.4 

Only bank methods 78.2 6.2 56.6 88.8 

B. Receiving income (Percent) 

Direct deposit into bank account 86.7 5.6 86.6 92.0 

Paper check or money order 27.6 45.4 30.8 25.6 

Cash 7.9 26.5 10.5 6.0 

Direct deposit onto prepaid card 3.4 23.3 5.0 1.6 

Other 1.8 10.6 1.9 1.2 

Nonbank check casher 1.9 23.7 3.8 0.0 

Did not select a method 1.6 10.5 1.3 1.1 

Any bank method 93.2 5.6 95.3 98.2 

Only bank methods 84.1 2.6 80.0 90.5 

Table 9.3 Joint Methods of Paying Bills and Receiving Income in a Typical Month by Banking Status, 2017 

For all households that paid bills and received income in a typical month, column percent 

All Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked 

Any bank method 

Cash 

Prepaid card 

Transaction AFS 

Other or none selected 

Only bank methods 

96.0 

21.0 

4.2 

7.8 

4.8 

70.6 

24.7 

70.6 

29.7 

47.9 

27.3 

1.1 

99.0 

32.6 

7.0 

26.7 

4.6 

48.5 

99.8 

14.6 

1.8 

0.0 

3.4 

81.3 

Notes: “Any bank method” includes households that used at least one bank method to pay bills or receive income. “Transaction AFS” includes households that used 

a nonbank money order to pay bills or that used a nonbank check casher to get the money from income received by paper check or money order. “Other or none 

selected” includes households that indicated they used other methods for bill payment or income receipt, or that did not select a method of bill payment or income 

receipt. “Only bank methods” includes households that used bank methods to pay bills and receive income, and did not use any other methods. 
61 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

10. Measuring Economic Inclusion 

A primary goal of the FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and 

Underbanked Households is to assess the inclusiveness of 

the U.S. banking system. Specifically, the survey is used to 

estimate the proportion of households that do not have an 

account at a federally insured depository institution (i.e., the 

unbanked rate) and the proportion that have an account but 

go outside of the banking system to meet their financial needs 

(i.e., the underbanked rate). As consumer financial product 

markets evolve and new products mature, measurement of 

the unbanked and underbanked may require updating to 

reflect such changes and to better assess the inclusiveness of 

the banking system. For these reasons, this section explores 

measurement of the unbanked and underbanked and considers refinement of the unbanked and underbanked definitions. 

Measurement of the Unbanked 

In this report and since the survey was first conducted in 

2009, a household is categorized as unbanked if no one in the 

household has a checking or savings account. As discussed 

in section 5, some consumers use general purpose reloadable 

prepaid cards to address their financial transactions needs. 

These cards may offer many of the same features as checking 

accounts, including a safe place to receive and store funds, 

the ability to withdraw cash from ATMs, and bill payment services. Further, a household that obtains a prepaid card from a 

bank may benefit from having a relationship with a bank, such 

as expanded access to other banking products and services. 

As a result, unbanked households that use prepaid cards obtained from banks could be considered banked. If they were, 

the unbanked rate in 2017 would fall slightly from 6.5 percent 

to 6.4 percent. 

Measurement of the Underbanked 

In this report and since 2013, a household is classified as 

underbanked if it has a checking or savings account and 

used one of the following products or services from an AFS 

provider in the past 12 months: money orders, check cashing, 

international remittances, payday loans, refund anticipation 

loans, rent-to-own services, pawn shop loans, or auto title 

loans.75 This underbanked definition does not incorporate 

intensity of AFS use: some underbanked households may 

routinely use AFS, while others may do so only sporadically. 

It also considers a wide range of AFS, including transaction 

and credit products and services. The costs and availability of 

these products and services vary, both in absolute terms and 

relative to comparable services offered by banks. As a result, 

households categorized as underbanked in this report are a 

fairly broad group, with a variety of experiences and levels of 

engagement with the banking system. 

To better understand the financial behaviors of the underbanked and their engagement with the banking system, the 

remainder of this section segments underbanked households 

into two groups based on whether they used only bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month.76 We 

then explore the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of households in each group, as well as how households in each group access their bank accounts and meet 

their transactions, savings, and credit needs. For context, we 

also compare the groups to the unbanked and fully banked. 

In 2017, approximately half (48.6 percent) of underbanked 

households used only bank methods to pay bills and receive 

income in a typical month, which we denote as underbanked 

group 1.77 The remaining 51.4 percent of underbanked 

households did not exclusively use bank methods to pay bills 

and receive income in a typical month, which we denote as 

underbanked group 2. 

Household Characteristics 

As shown in Table 10.1, the socioeconomic and demographic 

characteristics of households in underbanked group 1 were 

generally similar to the characteristics of the fully banked. 

Relative to households in underbanked group 1 and to the 

fully banked, households in underbanked group 2 had lower 

income and educational attainment; were more likely to be 

75Underbanked definitions were different in the 2009 and 2011 reports, in part because of differences in the sets of AFS asked about in the 2009 and 2011 surveys. 

International remittances were first asked about in the 2011 survey, and auto title loans were first asked about in the 2013 survey. 

76The analysis presented in the remainder of this section excludes 5,402 observations (representing roughly 21.1 million households) with missing information on 

whether the household saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies; used one or more mainstream credit products; used credit AFS; applied for, was denied, or 

felt discouraged about applying for a credit card or bank personal loan; or fell behind on bills. The analysis also excludes households with missing information on use 

of prepaid cards or nonbank money orders or check cashers in the past 12 months, on methods used to pay bills or receive income, or where the household indicated 

that it did not pay bills or receive income in a typical month. 

77Households in underbanked group 1 were classified as underbanked because either they used credit AFS in the past 12 months, or they used transaction AFS in the 

past 12 months but not to pay bills or receive income in a typical month. 
62 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Table 10.1 Selected Household Characteristics by Banking Status, 2017 

For all households that paid bills and received income in a typical month, column percent 

Characteristics Underbanked 

group 1 

Underbanked 

group 2 

Fully 

banked Unbanked 

Family income (Percent) 

Less than $15,000 8.3 18.5 7.9 45.5 

$15,000 to $30,000 12.3 22.9 12.8 30.7 

$30,000 to $50,000 22.3 26.2 18.9 17.8 

$50,000 to $75,000 22.5 17.3 19.7 3.7 

At least $75,000 

Education (Percent) 

34.5 15.1 40.8 2.2 

No high school diploma 7.9 16.1 6.2 33.4 

High school diploma 23.6 31.6 23.7 36.5 

Some college 30.3 34.4 28.6 24.0 

College degree 

Age group (Percent) 

38.2 17.9 41.5 6.1 

15 to 24 years 6.1 10.2 4.2 8.0 

25 to 34 years 18.5 21.8 15.0 23.1 

35 to 44 years 19.0 20.3 15.6 19.8 

45 to 54 years 19.9 17.2 17.8 19.6 

55 to 64 years 17.9 18.0 19.4 17.3 

65 years or more 

Race/Ethnicity (Percent) 

18.6 12.5 28.0 12.2 

Black 17.4 27.9 9.3 36.6 

Hispanic 16.6 22.1 9.0 28.4 

Asian 7.2 2.2 5.2 1.2 

White 57.1 44.9 75.2 30.5 

Other 

Disability status (Percent) 

1.8 2.9 1.3 3.3 

Disabled, age 25 to 64 8.3 14.6 6.5 22.6 

Not disabled, age 25 to 64 67.0 62.6 61.3 57.2 

Not applicable (not age 25 

to 64) 

Monthly income volatility 

(Percent) 

24.7 22.7 32.2 20.2 

Income was about the same 

each month 75.5 66.8 80.4 69.8 

Income varied somewhat 

from month to month 19.7 26.0 16.2 20.9 

Income varied a lot from 

month to month 4.7 7.1 3.3 9.3 

Unknown 0.1 - 0.1 -

Notes: Estimates may differ from those presented elsewhere in the report because of differences in the samples being analyzed. Households in underbanked group 1 

used only bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month, while households in underbanked group 2 did not exclusively use bank methods to pay 

bills and receive income in a typical month. The - symbol indicates an estimate of zero. The population proportion may be slightly greater than zero. See Appendix 

Table H.1 for additional socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of households in underbanked groups 1 and 2. 
63 

young, black, Hispanic, or working-age disabled; and were 

more likely to have volatile income. For example, 18.5 percent 

of households in underbanked group 2 had less than $15,000 

in income, compared with 8.3 percent of households in underbanked group 1 and 7.9 percent of the fully banked. Likewise, 16.1 percent of households in underbanked group 2 did 

not have a high school diploma, compared with 7.9 percent 

of households in underbanked group 1 and 6.2 percent of the 

fully banked. 

The share of households with volatile income was similar for 

underbanked group 2 and the unbanked: 33.2 percent of 

households in underbanked group 2 had income that varied 

somewhat or a lot from month to month, compared with 30.2 

percent of the unbanked. 

Bank Account Access Methods 

As illustrated in Figure 10.1, use of mobile banking as the 

primary method of bank account access was similar across 

the two underbanked groups.78 However, among households 

in underbanked group 2, use of bank tellers was more prevalent and use of online banking less prevalent, compared with 

households in underbanked group 1. 

Methods Used to Pay Bills and Receive Income in a 

Typical Month 

As presented in Figure 10.2, almost all (97.9 percent) households in underbanked group 2 used at least one bank method 

to pay bills or receive income in a typical month.79 Among 

the other methods used, cash and transaction AFS were the 

most prevalent (primarily for paying bills, as discussed in 

section 9).80 Almost two-thirds of households in underbanked 

group 2 (63.8 percent) used cash to pay bills or receive income in a typical month, a share that is almost as high as the 

estimate for the unbanked (70.6 percent). 

Figure 10.1 Selected Primary Methods Used to Access Bank Accounts by Banking Status, 2017 (Percent) 

17.7 

25.9 

23.8 

36.0 

18.7 

39.8 

22.4 

20.2 

14.9 

Bank teller Online banking Mobile banking 

Underbanked group 1 Underbanked group 2 Fully banked 

Notes: Estimates may differ from those presented elsewhere in the report because of differences in the samples being analyzed. Households in underbanked group 

1 used only bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month, while households in underbanked group 2 did not exclusively use bank methods to pay 

bills and receive income in a typical month. 

78The analysis of bank account access methods further excludes 323 observations (representing roughly 1.1 million banked households) that did not access their 

accounts in the past 12 months or that did not report whether they accessed their accounts. 

79By definition, households in underbanked group 1 used only bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month, so this group is not displayed in Figure 

10.2. 

80Overall use of prepaid cards in the past 12 months was also higher among households in underbanked group 2 (21.7 percent), compared with households in 

underbanked group 1 (7.5 percent). 
64 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Figure 10.2 Selected Joint Methods of Paying Bills and Receiving Income in a Typical Month by Banking Status, 2017 

(Percent) 

52.3 

21.8 

97.9 99.8 

24.4 

63.8 

14.6 

70.6 

13.7 

1.9 

29.9 

51.2 

0.0 

47.8 

Any bank method Cash Prepaid card Transaction AFS 

Underbanked group 2 Fully banked Unbanked 

Notes: Estimates may differ from those presented elsewhere in the report because of differences in the samples being analyzed. Households in underbanked group 

2 did not exclusively use bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month. “Any bank method” includes households that used at least one bank 

method to pay bills or receive income. “Transaction AFS” includes households that used a nonbank money order to pay bills or that used a nonbank check casher 

to get the money from income received by paper check or money order. 

Saving for Unexpected Expenses or Emergencies 

As displayed in Figure 10.3, households in underbanked 

group 1 saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies at 

a similar rate to the fully banked, while households in underbanked group 2 saved at a somewhat lower rate.81 

As indicated in Figure 10.4, among households that saved 

for unexpected expenses or emergencies, the proportion that 

kept savings in a savings account was similar for underbanked group 1 and the fully banked but lower for underbanked group 2. The proportion that kept savings in a savings 

or checking account followed a similar pattern: 86.1 percent for underbanked group 1 and 89.2 percent for the fully 

banked, compared with 74.0 percent for underbanked group 

2. The pattern was opposite for maintaining savings in the 

home, or with family or friends. 

Figure 10.3 Rates of Saving for Unexpected Expenses or 

Emergencies by Banking Status, 2017 

61.8 62.9 

Underbanked group 1 Fully banked 

Underbanked group 2 Unbanked 

Notes: Estimates may differ from those presented elsewhere in the report 

because of differences in the samples being analyzed. Households in underbanked group 1 used only bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a 

typical month, while households in underbanked group 2 did not exclusively 

use bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month. 

81The difference in savings rates between the two underbanked groups was no longer statistically significant after accounting for differences between the two groups 

in the household characteristics listed in Appendix Table A.2. Almost all of the difference in savings rates between the two groups can be attributed to differences in 

income and the other household characteristics between the two groups. 
65 

Figure 10.4 Selected Savings Methods for Households That Saved by Banking Status, 2017 (Percent) 

72.3 

57.9 

75.5 

2.3 

24.4 22.5 24.0 

2.4 

10.4 

23.3 

7.8 

66.8 

0.1 0.7 0.1 

11.2 

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

Underbanked group 1 Underbanked group 2 Fully banked Unbanked 

Notes: Estimates may differ from those presented elsewhere in the report because of differences in the samples being analyzed. Households in underbanked 

group 1 used only bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month, while households in underbanked group 2 did not exclusively use bank 

methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month. Bars may sum to more than 100 percent because households were asked to select all savings 

methods used. 

Mainstream Credit Product Use and Credit 

Characteristics 

As illustrated in panel A of Table 10.2, use of most mainstream 

credit products was lower among households in underbanked 

group 2, relative to households in underbanked group 1. For 

example, 48.9 percent of households in underbanked group 2 

had a credit card from Visa, MasterCard, American Express, 

or Discover, compared with 72.8 percent of households in 

underbanked group 1. Further, the proportion of households 

that did not have mainstream credit was much higher for 

underbanked group 2 (28.8 percent) than for underbanked 

group 1 (13.4 percent). Use of mainstream credit products for 

underbanked group 1 was generally similar to that of the fully 

banked. 

Panel B of Table 10.2 shows some differences in credit 

characteristics across the underbanked groups. Households 

in underbanked group 2 were more likely than households in 

underbanked group 1 to have felt discouraged about applying 

for a credit card or bank personal loan or to have fallen 

behind on bills. The proportion of households in underbanked 

group 2 that fell behind on bills (38.1 percent) was similar to 

the proportion among the unbanked (43.4 percent).82 

Summary 

Overall, the segmentation analysis suggests that it is 

important to consider intensity of transaction AFS use in 

measuring the underbanked. While some households make 

incidental use of transaction AFS, other households use 

transaction AFS to meet their basic financial needs, such as 

paying bills or receiving income. If intensity of transaction 

AFS use were considered in the classification of underbanked 

households, fewer households in underbanked group 1 may 

be classified as underbanked. 

82Differences between the two underbanked groups in the proportions of households that applied for or were denied a credit card or bank personal loan (or that were 

denied, conditional on applying) were no longer statistically significant after accounting for differences between the two groups in the household characteristics listed 

in Appendix Table A.2. 
66 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Table 10.2 Mainstream Credit Product Use and Credit Characteristics by Banking Status, 2017 

For all households that paid bills and received income in a typical month, column percent 

Underbanked 

group 1 

Underbanked 

group 2 

Fully 

banked Unbanked 

A. Mainstream credit 

product use (Percent) 

Credit card 72.8 48.9 77.5 8.7 

Store credit card 46.6 30.6 46.8 4.4 

Mortgage, home equity loan, 

or HELOC 34.5 19.0 39.4 4.0 

Auto loan 42.1 30.0 34.5 7.0 

Student loan 22.6 19.3 16.9 5.2 

Bank personal loan 9.6 7.6 7.2 1.2 

Other mainstream nonbank 3.8 5.0 1.6 1.3 

No mainstream credit 13.4 28.8 12.9 77.1 

B. Credit characteristics 

(Percent) 

Applied 19.9 16.9 14.4 3.1 

Denied 5.6 6.9 2.0 2.0 

Felt discouraged about 

applying 10.2 16.6 3.3 9.6 

Fell behind on bills 19.6 38.1 8.3 43.4 

Denied, conditional on 

applying 28.4 40.6 13.9 NA 

Notes: Estimates may differ from those presented elsewhere in the report because of differences in the samples being analyzed. Households in underbanked group 

1 used only bank methods to pay bills and receive income in a typical month, while households in underbanked group 2 did not exclusively use bank methods to 

pay bills and receive income in a typical month. NA indicates that the sample size was too small to produce a precise estimate. 
67 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

 

11. Implications and Conclusions 

The survey results show that the unbanked rate declined 0.5 

percentage points between June 2015 and June 2017. This 

decline can be attributed almost entirely to improvements 

in the economic circumstances of U.S. households. The 

unbanked rate fell for many groups that had high unbanked 

rates in 2015. However, unbanked rates for these groups 

remain substantially higher than the overall unbanked rate 

in 2017. Below, we discuss a number of opportunities 

to increase the use of mainstream banking services by 

unbanked and underbanked households that may help to 

further reduce unbanked and underbanked rates going 

forward. 

1. New underwriting technologies could help expand 

access to small-dollar credit for banked consumers, 

including consumers with little or no credit history. 

The vast majority of the 13 percent of households 

with unmet demand for mainstream small-dollar 

credit are banked, and almost all receive income and 

pay bills using their bank accounts. But few of these 

households applied for a credit card or bank personal loan. Account balances and transactions may provide information for banks to underwrite small-dollar 

credit to some of these households. 

Access to small-dollar credit is important for weathering 

financial setbacks, particularly for households with fluctuating 

income or lack of savings. Almost 13 percent of households 

have unmet demand for mainstream small-dollar credit, 

meaning that, in the past 12 months, they applied for and 

were denied a credit card or bank personal loan, felt discouraged about applying for a credit card or bank personal loan, 

or used credit AFS. 

Nine in ten of these households are banked, and more than 

eight in ten have been banked for 12 months or longer. Most 

direct deposit their income into their bank accounts (87.1 

percent) and pay bills using methods directly linked to their 

accounts, including electronic payment from a bank account, 

bank debit card, or personal check (95.0 percent). Despite an 

active banking relationship, only one-third of banked households with unmet demand for mainstream small-dollar credit 

applied for a credit card or bank personal loan in the past 12 

months. 

Among households with unmet demand for mainstream 

small-dollar credit, almost six in ten indicate that they were 

current on their bills over the past 12 months. While this is 

an incomplete measure of creditworthiness, it nevertheless 

provides some insight into the financial situation of these 

households. For some of the remaining households, it is possible that obtaining mainstream small-dollar credit could have 

prevented the household from falling behind on its bills. 

For households with a banking relationship, account balances 

and transactions may provide information for underwriting 

loans to these consumers. In particular, such information may 

enable banks to underwrite small-dollar loans to consumers 

with little or no credit history. Almost a quarter of banked 

households with unmet demand for mainstream small-dollar 

credit likely have insufficient credit history to have a credit 

score.83 Providing small-dollar bank loans to these households may help strengthen their relationships with banks and 

allow them to begin building credit.84 

2. About one in five households likely have little or no 

credit history. The vast majority of these households 

are banked and may not seek credit until a need 

arises. Helping these households establish and build 

a credit history may particularly benefit black households, Hispanic households, and households headed 

by a working-age individual with a disability. All of 

these households are disproportionately less likely to 

have mainstream credit. 

Approximately one in five households did not, in the past 

12 months, have any mainstream credit products that are 

reported to credit bureaus and therefore likely have little or no 

credit history. Although three-quarters of these households 

are banked, they might not be aware of the importance of 

credit and might not seek credit until a need arises. 

83In the past 12 months, these households did not have any of the credit products that are likely reported to credit bureaus. These include credit cards; store credit 

cards; mortgages, home equity loans, and home equity lines of credit (HELOCs); auto loans; student loans; bank personal loans; and other mainstream nonbank credit. 

84In qualitative research, several banks described small-dollar loan products that they offered, some of which included financial education. See “Bank Efforts to Serve 

Unbanked and Underbanked Consumers Qualitative Research,” May 25, 2016 (available at http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/community/research/qualitativeresearch_ 

may2016.pdf). 
68 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Some segments of the population are less likely to have 

had mainstream credit in the past 12 months. More than 

one-third (36.0 percent) of black households and 31.5 

percent of Hispanic households had no mainstream credit, 

compared with 14.4 percent of white households. Four in 

ten working-age disabled households (40.4 percent) had no 

mainstream credit, compared with 15.3 percent of workingage nondisabled households. 

These disparities persist even after accounting for 

socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (such as 

income, education, and age) and bank account ownership. 

For example, among households with income between 

$30,000 and $50,000, 27.9 percent of black households and 

28.5 percent of Hispanic households had no mainstream 

credit, compared with 16.2 percent of white households. 

Helping households with no mainstream credit establish and 

build a credit history may therefore particularly benefit black, 

Hispanic, and working-age disabled households that are 

disproportionately less likely to have mainstream credit. 

3. Mobile banking holds real promise for deepening 

the connection between underbanked households 

and their banks while increasing the safety and 

convenience of bill payments. A large share of 

underbanked households pays bills in a typical 

month with cash or nonbank money orders. More 

than two in five of these households already use 

mobile banking to access their bank accounts. 

Increased use of mobile banking activities by these 

households may enable them to conduct a greater 

share of their basic financial transactions within the 

banking system. 

About two in five underbanked households pay some bills in 

a typical month with cash or nonbank money orders. These 

underbanked households demonstrate a high level of engagement with the banking system: more than four in five 

also pay bills in a typical month using a bank method, such as 

electronic payment from a bank account. A similar proportion 

typically receives income through direct deposit into their 

bank accounts. 

These underbanked households’ high level of engagement 

with the banking system suggests that they may be receptive 

to conducting a greater share of their basic financial transactions within the banking system. Banks and other stakeholders could encourage and facilitate the use of mobile bill pay 

or mobile person-to-person payments by these households 

because more than four in five of them had access to a 

smartphone. 

Also, more than two in five of these underbanked households 

already use mobile banking to access their accounts. But only 

a quarter use a bank’s mobile website or mobile app to pay 

bills, and only about one in eight use a bank’s mobile website 

or mobile app to send money to other people. Using mobile 

bill pay or mobile person-to-person payments instead of cash 

or nonbank money orders increases safety and convenience, 

deepens the connection between households and their 

banks, and increases the opportunity for households to derive 

value from the banking relationship. 

To the extent that the use of cash or money orders is partially 

the result of payee requirements, efforts to encourage and 

make it easier for a range of payees (e.g., landlords) to accept 

electronic payments may help these households reduce their 

use of cash and nonbank money orders. For example, opportunities may exist for banks to increase customer awareness 

about innovations that have made mobile payments between 

individuals and payments to businesses faster and safer. 

4. Physical access to bank branches remains important 

even as use of mobile banking and online banking 

has increased. In 2017, the great majority of banked 

households visited a bank branch in the past 12 

months, and more than one-third visited ten or more 

times. In addition, almost one in six unbanked households visited a bank branch in the past 12 months. 

These findings suggest that branches continue to 

play an important role for banked households and 

that opportunities may exist for branch staff to 

inform unbanked households about products and 

services that can help meet their financial needs. 

Household use of mobile banking as the primary method 

of bank account access more than doubled between 2013 

and 2017. Use of online banking as the primary method also 

increased during that period. Commensurately, the proportion 

of households that primarily use bank tellers to access their 

accounts declined from 32.2 percent in 2013 to 24.3 percent 

in 2017. Despite this decline, physical access to branches 

remains important. 

In 2017, almost three in four banked households used bank 

tellers to access their accounts at least once in the past 12 

months, a higher proportion than any other method asked 

about in the survey. Moreover, some households may rely on 

bank branches for activities other than accessing an account, 

such as resolving a problem or asking about products or 

services. Almost five in six banked households visited a bank 

branch at least once in the past 12 months, and more than 

one in three visited ten or more times. 
69 

Branch visits were prevalent even among banked households 

that did not use bank tellers as their primary method of 

account access. For example, about eight in ten banked 

households that primarily used mobile banking visited a 

branch in the past 12 months, and nearly one-quarter visited 

ten or more times. These findings suggest that branches 

and the range of services they provide continue to play an 

important role for many banked households. 

In addition, some groups with higher unbanked and underbanked rates, including lower-income households, less-educated households, older households, and households in rural 

areas, continue to disproportionately use bank tellers as their 

primary—and often only—method for accessing their accounts. For example, in 2017, more than one-third of banked 

households in rural areas primarily used bank tellers to access 

their accounts, and one in five only used bank tellers. Almost 

half of banked households in rural areas visited a branch ten 

or more times in the past 12 months. 

While bank branch visits were less common among unbanked 

households, relative to banked households, almost one in six 

unbanked households visited a bank branch at least once in 

the past 12 months, and one in twenty visited ten or more 

times. Approximately seven in ten unbanked households that 

visited a branch had previously been banked, and about two 

in five were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to open a bank 

account in the next 12 months. 

These findings suggest that unbanked households that visit 

banks find value in the banking system and can benefit from 

the development of products and services that could meet 

their financial needs.85 For example, if unbanked households 

are visiting a bank branch to cash a payroll check, banks that 

offer accounts with low or no minimum balance requirements 

and low fees could promote these accounts and advertise the 

convenience and security of using direct deposit and bill pay 

compared with cashing a payroll check.86 

5. Unbanked rates for some segments of the population 

have declined as economic conditions improved between 2011 and 2017. Still, unbanked rates for these 

groups, including black and Hispanic households, 

remain substantially above the national average. At 

the same time, unbanked rates for other population 

segments, such as working-age disabled households, have remained high and stayed fairly constant 

between 2011 and 2017. Understanding the evolution 

of unbanked rates for different population segments 

and adopting targeted strategies may help sustain 

increases in bank account ownership in future economic downturns and increase access for different 

population segments with high unbanked rates. 

Almost 17 percent (16.9 percent) of black households and 

14.0 percent of Hispanic households were unbanked in 2017. 

Unbanked rates for these two groups have declined steadily in recent years, consistent with the overall decline in the 

national unbanked rate. For black households, the unbanked 

rate has fallen from 21.4 percent in 2011. Similarly, the 

unbanked rate for Hispanic households has decreased from 

20.1 percent in 2011. 

Improved economic conditions of black households in 2017 

relative to 2011, particularly increases in household income, 

educational attainment, and employment, explain almost 

all of the 4.5 percentage point decline in the unbanked rate 

for black households over this period.87 Improved economic 

conditions of Hispanic households in 2017 relative to 2011 

also played a role in the declining unbanked rate for those 

households.88 

These findings are consistent with findings from the 2013 survey, where job losses or gains and significant income changes 

seemed to be common triggers for bank account openings 

and closings among households that had recently become 

banked or had recently become unbanked.89 To reduce the 

likelihood that future economic downturns reverse some or all 

85See “Bank Efforts to Serve Unbanked and Underbanked Consumers Qualitative Research,” May 25, 2016, for examples of a range of products and services that the 

11 interviewed banks offered to sustainably meet the needs of unbanked and underbanked consumers. This report also describes a variety of additional strategies 

used by these banks to reach and serve unbanked and underbanked consumers. 

86See http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/template/template.pdf for the FDIC Model Safe Accounts Template. 

87A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes from 2011 to 2017 in the distribution of households across the household characteristics listed 

in Appendix Table A.2 (except for monthly income volatility, which is not available for 2011). Changes in these household characteristics between 2011 and 2017 

accounted for about 85 percent of the decrease in the unbanked rate for black households over this period. 

88A linear probability model was estimated to account for changes from 2011 to 2017 in the distribution of households across the household characteristics listed 

in Appendix Table A.2 (except for monthly income volatility, which is not available for 2011). Changes in these household characteristics between 2011 and 2017 

accounted for approximately 40 percent of the decrease in the unbanked rate for Hispanic households over this period. 

89See 2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, October 2014 (available at http://www.economicinclusion.gov/surveys/2013household/ 

documents/2013_FDIC_Unbanked_HH_Survey_Report.pdf). 
 

of the decline in the unbanked rate for population segments 

whose unbanked rates have declined, policymakers and industry participants may consider ways to cushion the impact 

of adverse financial shocks on a household’s ability or desire 

to maintain a bank account, such as forbearance of fees or 

the use of flexible product design. 

While unbanked rates have declined for black and Hispanic 

households during this period of economic expansion, unbanked rates for other populations with a large percentage of 

unbanked households have not declined at a similar pace. For 

example, the unbanked rate for working-age disabled households has been fairly 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. 

Moreover, even with the declines in unbanked rates, bank 

account ownership among black and Hispanic households 

continues to be significantly below the national average. Further, an overwhelming majority of unbanked black, Hispanic, 

and working-age disabled households are “not very likely” or 

“not at all likely” to open an account in the next 12 months. 

These findings suggest the continued need for targeted 

strategies that address barriers to bank account ownership for each of the different population segments with high 

unbanked rates.90 A substantial portion of the 6.2 percentage 

point decline in the unbanked rate for Hispanic households 

between 2011 and 2017 cannot be explained by changes in 

economic conditions. Research to identify the factors that 

have contributed to this decline, beyond those related to the 

business cycle, can inform actions that may further reduce 

the unbanked rate for Hispanic households, and these efforts 

may be adaptable to other groups with high unbanked rates. 

90See “Bank Efforts to Serve Unbanked and Underbanked Consumers Qualitative Research,” May 25, 2016, for examples of different efforts and targeted strategies 

undertaken by 11 interviewed banks to reach and serve unbanked and underbanked consumers. 

70 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
71 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

Appendix 1. FDIC Technical Notes 

The data for this report were collected through a Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)-sponsored Unbanked/ 

Underbanked Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) for June 2017. The CPS is a monthly survey of 

about 52,000 interviewed households conducted by the U.S. 

Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The 

survey is based on a scientific sample that is representative of 

the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population, aged 15 

or older. 

The CPS is the primary source of information on the labor 

force characteristics of the U.S. population, including employment, unemployment, and earnings statistics. The CPS 

includes a variety of demographic characteristics, such as 

age, sex, race, marital status, and educational attainment. Additional information about the CPS is provided on the Census 

Bureau’s website.1 

The CPS sample consists of independent samples in each 

state and the District of Columbia. The sample sizes for each 

state are set so that specific precision requirements for estimating unemployment rates will be met.2

 The sample design 

ensures that most of the households in a given state have the 

same probability of being selected, though, in general, household selection probabilities will vary across states. Because 

the CPS design is state-based, most of the estimates for the 

Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement should be precise at the 

state level and for some metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). 

Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement 

The fifth Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement was conducted 

in June 2017. The first, second, third, and fourth supplements 

were conducted in January 2009, June 2011, June 2013, and 

June 2015, respectively. The primary purpose of the supplement is to estimate the percentage of U.S. households that 

are “unbanked” and “underbanked” and to identify the 

reasons why. The supplement survey instrument used in 

2017, attached as Appendix 3, included approximately 50 

questions designed to provide this information. 

The 2017 survey instrument is similar to previous survey 

instruments. The 2009 instrument was developed with the 

expertise of a national consulting firm, which specializes in 

public opinion research, as well as input from the Census Bureau’s Demographic Surveys Division and the BLS. The 2009 

survey instrument underwent four rounds of cognitive field 

pre-testing and was revised to address the feedback gathered 

from each round.3

 The questionnaire was revised in 2011, 

2013, 2015, and 2017. For a detailed description of the most 

recent revisions, which underwent two rounds of cognitive 

testing, see Appendix 2. Because of changes in the questionnaire, direct comparisons between 2017 and prior-year 

estimates are not possible in some cases. 

Eligibility and Exclusions 

All households that participated in the June 2017 CPS were 

eligible to participate in the Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement. However, only households whose respondents 

specified that they had some level of participation in their 

household finances and responded “Yes” or “No” to whether someone in their household had a bank account (survey 

supplement Question 2, or Q2) were considered survey respondents.4

 CPS household respondents who did not answer 

or answered “Don’t know” to Q2, or who did not participate 

in their household financial decisions (or refused to answer), 

were asked no further questions and were classified as nonrespondents for the supplement. 

Coverage and Response Rates 

For the June 2017 CPS, a statistical sample of 60,843 

survey-eligible households was selected from the sampling 

frame.5 Of these households, 52,068 participated in the CPS, 

1

See, for example, U.S. Census Bureau’s Technical Paper 66, “Design and Methodology, Current Population Survey,” available at http://www.census.gov/ 

prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf. 

2

The precision targets that are the basis for the sample design of the CPS are provided in Chapter 3 of Technical Paper 66, available at http://www.census.gov/ 

prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf. 

3

The goal of each round was to determine respondents’ comprehension of each question, test the flow of the questions, find major recall difficulties, ascertain the 

sensitivity or inappropriateness of any questions, and gauge the operational feasibility of the supplement. No changes to the survey were recommended following the 

fourth round of testing. 

4

Respondents involved in their household finances include respondents in households where adults have separate finances or in households where the respondent 

was the only adult in the household. For households where adults share finances or have a mix of shared and separate finances, respondents were asked to specify 

how much they participated in their household financial decisions. Only those who reported having at least some level of participation were considered to be involved 

in their household finances. 

5

For details on the sampling frame, refer to the technical documentation for the June 2017 supplement, available at http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html. 
 

resulting in an 86 percent response rate. There were 8,775 

nonrespondent eligible households. Most of these nonrespondents either refused to participate (76 percent) or were not 

home at the time of the interview visit or call (13 percent). The 

remaining 11 percent consisted of households where (a) the 

household respondent was temporarily absent, (b) the household could not be located, (c) language barriers prevented the 

interview, or (d) other reasons. Because of the availability of 

translators for many languages, only 0.5 percent of the nonrespondents (44 households) did not participate as a result of 

language barriers. 

Coverage ratios for the CPS are derived as a measure of the 

percentage of persons in the target universe (the U.S. civilian, 

noninstitutionalized population, aged 15 or older) that are 

included in the sampling frame.6

 The overall coverage ratio for 

the June 2017 CPS was 89 percent. The missing 11 percent 

consists of three groups: (1) persons residing in households 

that are not in the CPS sampling frame, (2) noninstitutionalized persons not residing in households at the time the CPS 

was conducted, and (3) household residents who were not 

listed as household members for the CPS for various reasons. 

The coverage ratios varied across demographic groups. For 

example, among women aged 15 and older, the coverage 

ratio was 93 percent for whites, 80 percent for blacks, and 84 

percent for Hispanics. 

Of the 52,068 households that participated in the CPS, 35,217 

(68 percent) also participated in the Unbanked/Underbanked 

Supplement.7

 Supplement survey response rates vary by 

household characteristics, ranging from 60 to 73 percent for 

the segments of the population listed in Appendix Table A.2. 

The weights calculated by the Census Bureau for the CPS 

and the Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement respondents 

were adjusted to account for both nonresponse and undercoverage. These weight adjustments help correct any biases 

in estimates because of nonresponse and undercoverage, so 

that results from the CPS are representative of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population, aged 15 or older.8 

Analysis of Supplement Survey Results 

Using supplement survey results, households were classified 

as unbanked if they answered “No” to the question, “Do you 

or anyone else in your household have a checking or savings account now?” Households that answered “Yes” to this 

question were classified as underbanked if they indicated that 

they used one of the following products or services from an 

alternative financial services provider in the past 12 months: 

money orders, check cashing, international remittances, 

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

pawn shop loans, or auto title loans. 

The estimated proportion of U.S. households that are unbanked was derived by dividing the sum of the weights of 

the household respondents who were identified as being 

unbanked by the sum of the weights of all household respondents. The same formula was used to estimate the proportion 

of U.S. households that are underbanked. For estimated 

proportions of unbanked or underbanked households for demographic subgroups, the same computational approach was 

used and applied to respondent households in the subgroup. 

In addition to presenting estimated proportions, many of the 

tables in this report include estimated numbers of households 

(e.g., total households, unbanked households, or underbanked households). An estimated number of households for 

a given category, such as unbanked, is derived as the sum 

of the weights of the sample households in that category. 

For example, for the entire supplement sample of 35,217 

respondent households, the sum of the household weights is 

roughly 129.3 million, which would be an estimate of all U.S. 

households as of June 2017. The Housing Vacancy Survey, another survey related to the CPS that uses household 

controls to produce household weights, provided an estimate 

of 119.1 million as the number of households in June 2017.9 

This difference (129.3 million versus 119.1 million) is because 

household weights prepared by Census for the CPS and for 

this supplement survey are generally taken to be the reference 

person weights and are not adjusted to align with household 

count controls. Household count controls were not used to 

adjust household weights because the CPS is a person-level survey rather than a household-level survey; therefore, 

universe controls were used only in the preparation of person 

weights. As a result, the sum of household weights shown in 

our tables for a category tends to be somewhat higher than 

the actual household count for the category. 

6

The coverage ratio is the weighted number of persons in a demographic group (after weights are adjusted to account for household nonresponse) divided by an 

independent count of persons in that demographic group (obtained from the 2010 Census with updates based on the American Community Survey). 

7

Taking into account the nonresponse to the base CPS, the overall response rate for the Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement was 58 percent. 

8

This adjustment is done by introducing three stages of ratio estimation that adjust weights to align with population control totals (independent population estimates 

for various demographic and geographic groups). The household weight is generally taken to be the weight of the householder/reference person; however, if the 

householder/reference person is a married male, the spouse’s weight is used. 

9

See Table 13a Monthly Household Estimates: 2000 to Present, Vintage 2017 (July 26, 2018), available at http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/hist_tab_13a_ 

v2017.xlsx. 

72 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
This report also contains a number of tables for which unbanked percentages and other household statistics are computed for subgroups defined by a particular socioeconomic 

or demographic characteristic. The household classification 

of a socioeconomic or demographic variable that is defined 

at the person level rather than the household level (e.g., race/ 

ethnicity, education, or employment status) is based on the 

socioeconomic or demographic classification of the householder/reference person (i.e., the person who owns or rents 

the home).10 

The Census Bureau classifies households into different 

household types. For instance, a family household is a 

household that includes two or more people related by birth, 

marriage, or adoption and residing together, along with any 

unrelated people who may be residing there. Detailed definitions regarding household types can be found in the technical 

documentation on the CPS website.11 

Households are categorized into racial/ethnic classifications as follows: if the householder is identified as black, 

the household is classified as “black” regardless of whether 

the householder is identified as Hispanic or any other race. 

If the householder is not identified as black and is identified 

as Hispanic, the household is classified as “Hispanic.” If the 

householder is identified as Asian and not black or Hispanic, 

then the household is classified as “Asian.” If the householder 

is identified as white and not any other race and not Hispanic, then the household is classified as “white.” All remaining 

households are classified as “other.” 

This report provides unbanked and other estimates for the 

population of households with disabilities. As in the 2013 

report (the first time these estimates were presented) and 

the 2015 report, households are categorized as follows: if 

the householder is between age 25 and 64 and either (a) 

indicates “Yes” to any of the six-question disability sequence 

in the base CPS or (b) is classified as “Not in labor force – 

disabled,” the household is classified as “Disabled, age 25 

to 64.”12 If the householder is between age 25 and 64 and 

neither condition (a) nor (b) above is met, the household is 

classified as “Not disabled, age 25 to 64.” If the householder 

is not between the ages of 25 and 64, the household is classified as “Not applicable (not age 25 to 64).”13 

This report presents estimates of unbanked and underbanked 

rates (and other outcomes of interest) for larger metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSAs). MSA delineations are established by 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB published 

a revised set of MSA delineations in February 2013, based 

on data from the 2010 Census and the 2006-2010 American 

Community Surveys. The 2013 delineations superseded the 

earlier delineations based on Census 2000 data, first established by OMB in June 2003.14 

As discussed in the technical documentation to the June 

2015 supplement, the Census Bureau phased the 2013 MSA 

delineations into the CPS (and phased out the 2003 delineations) over the period May 2014 to July 2015.15 Housing units 

first included in the CPS before May 2014 were assigned 

metropolitan area codes based on the 2003 delineations. 

These metropolitan area codes consisted of metropolitan New 

England city and town area (NECTA) codes for New England 

states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) and MSA codes for other 

states.16 Housing units first included in the CPS in May 2014 

or later were assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 

2013 delineations. These metropolitan area codes consisted 

only of MSA codes, as housing units in New England were 

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

delineations. 

For the 2017 survey data, all housing units were assigned 

metropolitan area codes based on the 2013 delineations. For 

the 2015 survey data, approximately three-quarters of housing units were assigned metropolitan area codes based on 

the 2013 delineations, while the remaining housing units were 

assigned metropolitan area codes based on the 2003 delinea10In a few cases, the householder/reference person is classified as an ineligible respondent for the CPS, but another eligible household resident participated in the CPS 

and in the Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement. In these cases we use the attributes of the eligible respondent to characterize the household. 

11See http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html. 

12Specifically, we use the variable PEMLR (monthly labor force recode) to determine if the respondent is not in the labor force because of a disability. Refer to the CPS 

Data Dictionary for detail on the six-question disability sequence, available at the following link: http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html. 

13A universally accepted method to identify the population with disabilities does not exist. Key estimates from the FDIC Unbanked/Underbanked Supplement, such as 

the proportion of disabled households that are unbanked, are qualitatively similar using alternative disability measures. See Appendix I of the 2013 report for details, 

available at http://www.economicinclusion.gov/surveys/2013household/documents/2013_FDIC_Unbanked_HH_Survey_Appendix.pdf. 

14For February 2013 delineations, see OMB Bulletin Number 13-01 (February 28, 2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/ 

bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf. For June 2003 delineations, see OMB Bulletin Number 03-04 (June 6, 2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2017/11/bulletins_b03-04.pdf. In each year between 2003 and 2009, OMB published minor revisions to the MSA delineations, based on the Census Bureau’s 

annual population estimates. 

15The technical documentation for the June 2015 supplement is available at http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html. 

16Unlike MSAs, which are made up of one of more full counties or county equivalents, NECTAs are composed of cities and towns and often do not follow county 

boundaries. 

73 
 

tions. To facilitate MSA-level estimates using the 2015 survey 

data, a housing unit with an obsolete 2003 MSA code was 

assigned the corresponding 2013 MSA code.17 A housing unit 

with a NECTA code was assigned the 2013 MSA code that 

comprised the majority of the NECTA population.18 Overall, 

less than 3 percent of housing units in the 2015 survey data 

were affected by these adjustments. 

For the 2013 and earlier survey data, all housing units were 

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

provided in this report are based on the 2003 delineations. 

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

addition or subtraction of a county), some metropolitan area 

estimates that use 2017 and 2015 survey data are not directly 

comparable to the corresponding metropolitan area estimates 

that use 2013 and earlier survey data. In the report tables, 

a tilde (~) next to an MSA name indicates that the MSA was 

affected by a geographic boundary change. All MSA names in 

the tables, however, reflect the 2013 delineations. 

Statistical Precision of Estimates 

To indicate the precision of certain estimates, standard errors 

were calculated based on the variation of the estimates 

across a set of 160 sample replicates provided by the Census 

Bureau. Details of the calculation of standard errors based on 

sample replicates (and on the CPS methodology in general) 

are available from the Census Bureau.19 

Estimated differences discussed in this report are significant 

at the 10 percent level, unless noted otherwise. That is, if 

the population difference were zero, then the probability of 

obtaining estimates having the observed difference or a larger 

difference would be no more than 10 percent and could be 

considerably less. For example, the estimated difference 

in the proportions of U.S. households that were unbanked 

between 2017 (6.5 percent) and 2015 (7.0 percent) is -0.5 

percentage points. The estimated standard error of this difference (computed using the 160 replicates as described above) 

is 0.2 percentage points. Under the assumption that the true 

difference in the unbanked rate between 2017 and 2015 is 

zero, the probability of observing the -0.5 percentage point 

difference in our sample data is 3.7 percent (i.e., the p-value 

is 0.037). 

Certain 2017 report appendix tables include 90 percent confidence intervals in addition to point estimates. The confidence 

interval is one way to describe the uncertainty surrounding the 

estimate. For example, as shown in Appendix Table A.3, the 

estimated proportion of U.S. households that were unbanked 

in 2017 is 6.5 percent, and the 90 percent confidence interval 

around this estimate ranges from 6.2 to 6.8 percent. 

17In the 2015 survey data, some housing units were located in counties populous enough to be identified, but no MSA code was assigned because these counties 

were not in an MSA based on the 2003 delineations (all of these housing units were first included in the CPS before May 2014). Because some of these counties were 

in an MSA based on the 2013 delineations, a 2013 MSA code was assigned to housing units located in such counties. 

18For example, housing units with a NECTA code for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH, were assigned the MSA code for Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH. For 

each NECTA code in the 2015 survey data, at least 80 percent of the Census 2010 NECTA population (and the estimated July 1, 2015, NECTA population) resided 

within the corresponding MSA, and for the majority of the NECTAs this number was at least 90 percent. 

19For a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate standard errors based on sample replicates, see Chapter 14 of Technical Paper 66, available at 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf. 

74 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
75 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

Appendix 2. 2017 Revisions to the FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households 

The 2017 survey instrument is largely similar to the 2015 

survey instrument. However, some revisions were made from 

2015 to 2017 based on lessons learned from past survey 

experience, cognitive testing of the 2017 instrument, and an 

interest in certain economic inclusion topics not covered in 

the 2015 instrument. In particular, the 2017 survey added new 

questions about households’ visits to bank branches, use of 

a mobile phone for banking activities, and use of mainstream 

credit products. 

To accommodate the new questions in the 2017 survey 

instrument and satisfy space constraints, some questions 

from the 2015 survey instrument were dropped. For example, 

the 2017 survey did not include questions on households’ 

perceptions about banks’ interest in serving households like 

theirs or on households’ learning about finances. 

Specific revisions to the 2017 survey are described below. 

Bank Branch Visits Among Banked and Unbanked 

Households 

The 2017 survey included new questions about bank branch 

visits. First, households that did not previously indicate 

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

unbanked households, or banked households that did not 

access an account using a bank teller in the past 12 months) 

were asked whether they spoke with a teller or other employee in person at a bank branch in the past 12 months (Q70). 

Second, households that visited a bank branch in the past 

12 months (i.e., households that answered “Yes” to Q70 or 

that accessed an account using a bank teller in the past 12 

months) were asked how many times they spoke with a teller 

or other employee in person at a bank branch: one to four 

times in the past 12 months, five to nine times in the past 12 

months, or ten or more times in the past 12 months (Q71). 

Mobile Activities 

The 2017 survey included a series of questions on use of a 

mobile phone for banking activities in the past 12 months. 

These questions were not asked in 2015, although several of 

these questions were asked in 2013. 

In 2017, banked households and recently unbanked households (i.e., households that did not have an account at the 

time of the survey but did at some point in the 12 months 

before) were asked whether they used a mobile phone to 

check email from a bank about an account (Q80a) or whether 

they received a mobile text alert or push notification from a 

bank about an account (Q80b). Banked households that used 

mobile banking to access an account in the past 12 months 

were further asked whether they used a bank’s mobile website or bank’s mobile app to check a bank account balance 

or recent transactions (Q80c), to make a bill payment (Q80d), 

to send money to other people (Q80e), or to transfer money 

between bank accounts owned by the same person (Q80f). 

Banked households that used mobile banking to access an 

account in the past 12 months were also asked whether they 

used a mobile phone’s camera to deposit a check into a bank 

account (Q80g). 

All of the activities asked about in the 2017 survey, except for 

whether households used a mobile phone to check email from 

a bank about an account, were also asked in the 2013 survey 

(2013 survey Q2i). The 2013 survey included some activities 

not asked about in the 2017 survey, specifically, whether 

households downloaded or used a bank’s mobile app, used 

a mobile phone to locate the closest in-network ATM or bank 

branch, or used a mobile phone for other activities.1 

Prepaid Cards 

The introductory language for the questions on prepaid card 

use was changed slightly. The statement “I am not asking 

about gift cards or debit cards linked to a checking account” 

was moved to the end of the introductory paragraph. In 2015, 

this statement was at the beginning of the introductory 

paragraph. 

Alternative Financial Services 

A new question was added to gather information on households’ use of loans or lines of credit from alternative financial 

services (AFS) providers that might not have been included 

in their answers to preceding questions. Specifically, households that indicated that they did not have a payday loan 

(Q122), pawn shop loan (Q123), refund anticipation loan 

1

In the 2013 survey, all mobile activities were asked only of banked households that used mobile banking to access a bank account in the past 12 months. The 

proportion of all banked households that received a mobile text alert or push notification from a bank about an account is therefore not comparable over time because 

different types of households in the 2013 and 2017 surveys were asked about this activity. 
 

(Q124), or auto title loan (Q126) in the past 12 months were 

asked whether they had taken out any other types of loans 

or lines of credit from a payday lender, auto title lender, pawn 

shop, or check casher in the past 12 months (Q127). To 

accommodate this new question, questions about auto title 

loans (Q126) and rent-to-own services (Q125) were reordered. 

Additionally, questions about sending money abroad in a 

typical month were dropped (2015 survey Q132 and Q134), 

and questions about places used to send money abroad in 

the past 12 months were streamlined (Q131 and Q133 from 

the 2015 survey were dropped and replaced with Q135 in the 

2017 survey). 

Mainstream Credit 

The 2017 survey included a series of questions about use of 

mainstream credit products, expanding on questions asked in 

the 2015 survey. Specifically, households in the 2017 survey 

were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they had a credit 

card from Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover 

(Q1600a); a store credit card that could only be used at that 

store (Q1600b); an auto loan (Q1600c); a mortgage, home 

equity loan, or home equity line of credit (Q1600d); a student 

loan (Q1600e); other personal loans or lines of credit from a 

bank (Q1600f); or other personal loans or lines of credit from 

a company other than a bank (Q1600g).2 

The 2017 survey questions about credit cards from Visa, 

MasterCard, American Express, or Discover and about 

personal loans or lines of credit from a bank (Q1600a and 

Q1600f) replaced similar questions from the 2015 survey 

(2015 survey Q160 and Q161). The wording and location of 

these questions changed somewhat to accommodate the 

new questions in the 2017 survey about other types of 

mainstream credit products. 

Income Receipt and Bill Payment in a Typical Month 

The 2015 survey included new questions about the ways 

households receive income and pay bills in a typical month. 

These questions were retained in the 2017 survey, with some 

minor revisions. 

First, in the introductory language to the questions about income receipt, “retirement” income was added to the example 

list of income sources. Second, a question that asked households to choose the primary (i.e., most common) method of 

bill payment in a typical month was dropped (2015 survey 

Q151), and the remaining questions on income receipt and 

bill payment methods were streamlined. Third, households 

that did not indicate that they received income by any of the 

methods asked about in the survey (Q140a-e) and that did not 

volunteer that they did not receive income were asked a new 

question about whether they received any income from work, 

retirement, government benefits, or other sources in the past 

12 months (Q140x). Similarly, households that did not indicate 

that they paid bills by any of the methods asked about in the 

survey (Q150a-i) and that did not volunteer that they did not 

pay bills were asked a new question about whether they paid 

any bills for things like mortgage, rent, utilities, or child care in 

the past 12 months (Q150x). 

Households’ Perceptions About Banks and 

Households’ Learning About Finances 

A question in the 2015 survey that asked households how 

interested banks are in serving households like theirs (2015 

survey Q101) was dropped. Questions about whether households sought financial information from banks in the past 12 

months (2015 survey Q182) and about whether households 

attended financial education classes or financial counseling 

sessions in the past 12 months (2015 survey Q183 and Q184) 

were also dropped. 

2

For Q1600c, households that previously indicated that they had taken out an auto title loan were told that an auto loan is different from an auto title loan. For Q1600g, 

households that previously indicated that they had taken out a payday loan, pawn shop loan, refund anticipation loan, auto title loan, or other types of loans or lines of 

credit from a payday lender, auto title lender, pawn shop, or check casher were told to not include such loans when answering Q1600g. 

76 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
77 

2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households

Appendix 3. Survey Instrument 

Next, I’d like to ask you some questions about household finances. 

1. Which of the following best describes your household fnances? Do the adults... 

 ̈	Share all fnances [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Share some fnances [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Share no fnances at all [SKIP TO Q2] 

 ̈	I AM THE ONLY ADULT IN THE HOUSEHOLD (VOLUNTEERED) [SKIP TO Q2] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

1a. How much do you participate in making fnancial decisions for your household? 

 ̈	A lot [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Some [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Not at all [TERMINATE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [TERMINATE] 

2. Do you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) have a checking or savings account now? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP TO Q3] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [TERMINATE] 

[Questions 2a-2h are asked only of households that have a bank account.] 

2a. Who is that? (Enter Line Number) 

 ̈	1-16 [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP TO Q2e] 

2b. What type or types of accounts do you and each of your household members have? (Ask this question for each adult 

(15 years of age and older) individual of the household.) 

 ̈	Only checking accounts [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Only savings accounts [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Or both checking and savings accounts [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	OTHER (VOLUNTEERED) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

2e. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2016, was there any time when no one in your household had an account? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 
 

2g. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) accessed an account in any of 

the following ways? (Mark all that apply.) 

 ̈	Bank teller [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	ATM or bank kiosk [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Telephone banking through phone call or automated voice or touch tone [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Online banking with a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet such as an iPad [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Mobile banking with text messaging, mobile app, or Internet browser or email on a 

mobile phone [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Other (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Did not access an account in the past 12 months [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

2h. What was the most common way that you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) accessed an account? 

(Read only answers marked in Q2g. Mark only one.) 

 ̈	Bank teller 

 ̈	ATM or bank kiosk 

 ̈	Telephone banking through phone call or automated voice or touch tone 

 ̈	Online banking with a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet such as an iPad

 ̈	Mobile banking with text messaging, mobile app, or Internet browser or email on a 

mobile phone 

 ̈	Other (Specify) 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[Questions 3-7 are asked only of households that do not have a bank account.] 

[SKIP TO Q70] 

[SKIP TO Q70] 

[SKIP TO Q70] 

[SKIP TO Q70] 

[SKIP TO Q70] 

[SKIP TO Q70] 

[SKIP TO Q70] 

3. Have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) ever had a checking or savings account? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP TO Q5] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP TO Q5] 

4. Have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) had a checking or savings account in the past 12 

months, that is since June 2016? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

5. There are different reasons people might not have a checking or savings account. Do any of the following reasons apply to you 

(if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household)? Do you not have an account... 

a1. Because bank hours are inconvenient? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

a2. Because bank locations are inconvenient? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

78 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
b1. Because bank account fees are too high? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

b2. Because bank account fees are unpredictable? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

c. Because banks do not offer products or services you need? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

d. Because you don’t trust banks? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

e. Because you do not have enough money to keep in an account? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

f. Because avoiding a bank gives more privacy? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

g. Because you cannot open an account due to personal identifcation, credit, or former bank account problems? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

h. Was there some other reason? 

 ̈	YES (Specify) 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

79 
 

6. What is the main reason why no one in your household has an account? (Read only answers marked in Q5a1-Q5h. 

Mark only one.) 

 ̈	Bank hours are inconvenient [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Bank locations are inconvenient [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Bank account fees are too high [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Bank account fees are unpredictable [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Banks do not offer products or services you need [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Don’t trust banks [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Do not have enough money to keep in an account [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Avoiding a bank gives more privacy [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Cannot open an account due to personal identifcation, credit, or former bank 

account problems [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Some other reason (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

7. How likely is it that you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) will open a checking or savings account 

within the next 12 months? 

 ̈	Very likely [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Somewhat likely [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Not very likely [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Not at all likely [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 70 is asked only of households that are unbanked or that are banked but did not access an account using a bank teller.] 

70. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) spoken with a teller or other 

employee in person at a bank branch? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP TO Q80] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP TO Q80] 

[Question 71 is asked only of households that spoke with a bank teller (or other employee) in the past 12 months (answered YES to 

Q70 or accessed an account using a bank teller).] 

71. How many times have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) spoken with a teller or other 

employee in person at a bank branch in the past 12 months? 

 ̈	1 to 4 times in the past 12 months [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	5 to 9 times in the past 12 months [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	10 or more times in the past 12 months [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

80 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
[Questions 80a-80b are asked only of households that are banked or recently unbanked. Otherwise, skip to Q110.] 

The next questions ask about ways you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) might have used a 

mobile phone for banking activities. 

80a. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) used a mobile phone to check 

email from a bank about an account? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

80b. Received a mobile text alert or push notifcation from a bank about an account? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[Questions 80c-80g are asked only of households that used mobile banking to access an account. Otherwise, skip to Q110.] 

80c. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) used a bank’s mobile website 

or bank’s mobile app to check a bank account balance or recent transactions? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

80d. Used a bank’s mobile website or bank’s mobile app to make a bill payment? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

80e. Used a bank’s mobile website or bank’s mobile app to send money to other people? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

80f. Used a bank’s mobile website or bank’s mobile app to transfer money between bank accounts owned by the same person? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

80g. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) used a mobile phone’s camera 

to deposit a check into a bank account? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

81 
 

Now I have a question about prepaid cards. Prepaid cards allow you or others, like relatives or a government agency, 

to load funds that can later be spent. Prepaid cards also allow you to withdraw cash from ATMs. I am not asking about 

gift cards or debit cards linked to a checking account. 

110. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2016, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) use any 

prepaid cards? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP to Q120] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP to Q120] 

[Question 111 is asked only of households that used a prepaid card in the last 12 months.] 

111. Where did the prepaid cards that you used in the past 12 months come from? (Mark all that apply.) 

 ̈	A bank location or bank’s website [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	A store or website that is not a bank [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	A government agency [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Employer payroll card [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Family or friends [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Other (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 112 is asked only of households that used a prepaid card from a government agency.] 

112. Thinking about the card(s) received from a government agency, why did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your 

household) have these card(s)? (Mark all that apply.) 

 ̈	To receive Social Security or disability benefts [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	To receive unemployment benefts [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	To receive food or child care benefts like SNAP or WIC [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Other (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

Earlier, we asked about banks, including any bank, savings and loans institution, credit union, or brokerage firm. The 

next questions ask about going to places other than a bank for your financial services. 

120. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2016, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) go to 

some place other than a bank to cash a check? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

121. In the past 12 months, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) go to some place other than a 

bank to purchase a money order? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

122. Did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) take out a payday loan or payday advance from some 

place other than a bank in the past 12 months? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

82 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
123. Did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) pawn an item at a pawn shop in the past 12 months? 

Do not include selling an unwanted item to a pawn shop. 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

124. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2016, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) take 

out a tax refund anticipation loan, or use a tax preparation service in order to receive your tax refund faster than the IRS would 

provide it? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

126. Auto title loans use a car title to borrow money for a short period of time. They are NOT loans used to purchase a car. In the 

past 12 months, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) take out an auto title loan? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 127 is asked only of households that indicated NO (or DK/REFUSE) to Q122, Q123, Q124, and Q126.] 

127. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) taken out any other types of 

loans or lines of credit from a payday lender, auto title lender, pawn shop, or check casher? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 125 is asked of all households.] 

125. Some stores allow people to rent to own items such as furniture or appliances. We do not mean stores that offer installment 

plans or layaway plans. In the past 12 months, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) rent anything 

from a rent-to-own store because it couldn’t be fnanced any other way? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

The next few questions are about sending money abroad. 

130. In the last 12 months, that is since June 2016, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) send 

money to family or friends living outside of the US? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP TO Q140a] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP TO Q140a] 

[Question 135 is asked only of households that sent money abroad.] 

135. When sending money abroad in the last 12 months, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) 

use... (Mark all that apply.) 

 ̈	A bank? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	A place other than a bank? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Other (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

83 
 

The next few questions are about the different ways people receive income. People may receive income from work, 

retirement, government benefits, or other sources in a number of ways. Think about the ways your household has 

received income during a typical month, in the past 12 months. 

[Question 140a is asked of all households.] 

140a. In a typical month, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household) received income by paper check or 

money order? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DID NOT RECEIVE INCOME IN PAST 12 MONTHS (VOLUNTEERED) 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[SKIP TO Q150a] 

[CONTINUE] 

[Question 140b is asked only of households that are banked or recently unbanked.] 

140b. How about through direct deposit or electronic transfer into a bank account? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[Question 140c is asked only of households that used a prepaid card in the past 12 months.] 

140c. In a typical month, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household) received income through direct deposit 

or electronic transfer onto a prepaid card? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Questions 140d-140e are asked of all households.] 

140d. In a typical month, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household) received income in cash? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

140e. In a typical month, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household) received income in any other form? 

 ̈	YES (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 140x is asked only of households that indicated NO to all applicable questions in Q140a-Q140e.] 

140x. In the past 12 months, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household) receive any income from work, retirement, government benefts, or other sources? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 141 is asked only of households that received income by paper check or money order, and used a nonbank check casher in the last 12 months.] 

141. Think about the income you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household) received by paper check or money order 

in the past 12 months. Did you typically use some place other than a bank to cash the check or money order? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

84 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
 

The next few questions are about the different ways people pay their monthly bills for things like mortgage, rent, utilities, or child care. Think about the ways your household has paid bills during a typical month, in the past 12 months. 

[Question 150a is asked of all households.] 

150a. In a typical month, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) use cash to pay these types of 

bills? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DID NOT PAY BILLS IN PAST 12 MONTHS (VOLUNTEERED) 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[Questions 150b-150c are asked only of households that are banked or recently unbanked.] 

150b. How about using a personal check drawn on a bank account to pay bills? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

150c. How about using a debit card linked to a bank account to pay bills? 

 ̈	YES 

 ̈	NO 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE 

[Question 150d is asked of all households.] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[SKIP TO Q1600a] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

[CONTINUE] 

150d. In a typical month, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) use a credit card to pay bills? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 150e is asked only of households that used a prepaid card in the last 12 months.] 

150e. In a typical month, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) use a prepaid card to pay bills? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 150f is asked only of households that are banked or recently unbanked.] 

150f. In a typical month, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) pay bills electronically from a bank 

account, either through online bill pay or direct withdrawal? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 150g is asked only of households that used a money order from a place other than a bank in the last 12 months.] 

150g. In a typical month, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) use a money order from a place 

other than a bank to pay bills? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

85 
 

[Questions 150h-150i are asked of all households.] 

150h. How about using a cashier’s check or money order from a bank to pay bills? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

150i. In a typical month, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) pay bills in any other way? 

 ̈	YES (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 150x is asked only of households that indicated NO to all applicable questions in Q150a-Q150i.] 

150x. In the past 12 months, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or others in your household) pay any bills for things like mortgage, 

rent, utilities, or child care? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

The next few questions are about how people borrow money or purchase items on credit. 

[Questions 1600a-1600g are asked of all households.] 

1600. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) had any of the following? 

a. A credit card from Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover? Please do not include debit cards. 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

b. A store credit card that can only be used at that store? Please do not include gift cards. 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

c. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) had an auto loan? [If YES to 

Q126, then FILL: This is different from an auto title loan.] 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

d. A mortgage or home equity loan or home equity line of credit? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

e. In the past 12 months, have you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone else in your household) had a student loan? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

86 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 
f. Other personal loans or lines of credit from a bank? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

g. Other personal loans or lines of credit from a company other than a bank? [If YES to Q124, then FILL: Please do not include 

refund anticipation loans or any loans from a payday lender, pawn shop, auto title lender, or check casher.] [If Q124 is NOT YES 

and any of Q122, Q123, Q126, or Q127 are YES, then FILL: Please do not include any loans from a payday lender, pawn shop, 

auto title lender, or check casher.] 

 ̈	YES (Specify who provided the loan) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 162 is asked of all households.] 

162. In the past 12 months, that is since June 2016, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) apply 

for a new credit card, or a personal loan or line of credit at a bank? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP TO Q164] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP TO Q164] 

[Question 163 is asked only of households that applied for credit in the last 12 months.] 

163. In the past 12 months, did any lender or creditor turn down your (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household’s) request for new credit or not give you as much credit as you applied for? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 164 is asked of all households.] 

164. Was there any time in the past 12 months that you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) thought 

about applying for a new credit card, or a personal loan or line of credit at a bank, but changed your mind because you thought 

you might be turned down? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

The next few questions are about the different ways that people save their money. 

170. Even if you later spent it, did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) set aside any money in the past 12 

months that could be used for unexpected expenses or emergencies? I’m only asking about funds that could be easily spent if 

necessary, and am not asking about retirement or other long-term savings. 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP TO Q180] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP TO Q180] 

[Question 171 is asked only of households that set aside some savings in the past 12 months.] 

87 
 

 

171. Where did you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or anyone in your household) keep this money? (Mark all that apply.) 

 ̈	(Read only for banked or recently unbanked) In a checking account? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	 (Read only for banked or recently unbanked) In a savings account? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	(Read only for those with a prepaid card) On a prepaid card? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	In other accounts such as certifcates of deposit, brokerage accounts, 

or savings bonds? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Did you keep the savings in the home, or with family or friends? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Did you buy something with the intent to pawn or sell later if necessary? [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Other (Specify) [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Questions 180-181 and 185 are asked of all households.] 

180. Which best describes your household’s income over the past 12 months? (Mark only one.) 

 ̈	Income is about the same each month [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Income varies somewhat from month to month [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	Income varies a lot from month to month [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

181. Often times, households fnd that they are not able to keep up with their bills. Over the last 12 months, was there a time 

when you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) fell behind on bill payments? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

185. Do you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) currently own or have regular access to a mobile 

phone? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [SKIP TO Q187] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [SKIP TO Q187] 

[Question 186 is asked only of households that have a mobile phone.] 

186. Are any of these mobile phones a smartphone with features to access the Internet, send emails, and download apps? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

[Question 187 is asked of all households.] 

187. Do you (if OTHERS AGE≥15 FILL: or someone else in your household) currently have regular access to the Internet 

at home using a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer? 

 ̈	YES [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	NO [CONTINUE] 

 ̈	DK/REFUSE [CONTINUE] 

<END> 

88 | 2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

FDIC-038-2018