FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

2017 

FDIC National Survey of 

Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households 

Executive Summary 

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 

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 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

FDIC-038-2018