Federal Reserve Board, Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020 (SHED report, May 2021, 2021-05)
Summary
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System report, "Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020," dated May 2021. The executive summary describes responses to the 2020 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED), which the Federal Reserve Board has fielded each fall since 2013 and which interviewed a sample of over 11,000 individuals in November 2020. It states that an unprecedented share of adults experienced a layoff during the year, and that the share of adults who said they were worse off financially than a year earlier was the highest since the survey began asking in 2014. It states that the share of adults who reported doing at least okay financially was unchanged from a year earlier.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Federal Reserve Board, Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020 (SHED report, May 2021, 2021-05).”
Original at www.federalreserve.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/federal-reserve-board-economic-well-being-of-u-s-households-in-2020-sh-435acbe1fb/
, SHA-256 fd0354228ad893d25faa4b9e8dbbf84d8d4c4159f85c534efede648a731b1f7a.Full text
R E S E A R C H & A N A LY S I S
Economic Well-Being of
U.S. Households in 2020
May 2021
B O A R D O F G OV E R N O R S O F T H E F E D E R A L R E S E RV E S Y S T E M
The Federal Reserve System is the central
bank of the United States. It performs five
key functions to promote the effective
operation of the U.S. economy and, more
generally, the public interest.
The Federal Reserve
■ conducts the nation's monetary policy to promote maximum employment
and stable prices in the U.S. economy;
■ promotes the stability of the financial system and seeks to minimize and
contain systemic risks through active monitoring and engagement in the
U.S. and abroad;
■ promotes the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions
and monitors their impact on the financial system as a whole;
■ fosters payment and settlement system safety and efficiency through
services to the banking industry and U.S. government that facilitate
U.S.-dollar transactions and payments; and
■ promotes consumer protection and community development through
consumer-focused supervision and examination, research and analysis of
emerging consumer issues and trends, community economic development
activities, and administration of consumer laws and regulations.
To learn more about us, visit www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed.htm.
R E S E A R C H & A N A LY S I S
Economic Well-Being of
U.S. Households in 2020
May 2021
B O A R D O F G OV E R N O R S O F T H E F E D E R A L R E S E RV E S Y S T E M
v
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1
Overall Financial Well-Being ................................................................................................ 2
Income ............................................................................................................................. 3
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 3
Dealing with Unexpected Expenses ..................................................................................... 4
Banking and Credit ............................................................................................................ 4
Housing ............................................................................................................................ 5
Education ......................................................................................................................... 5
Student Loans .................................................................................................................. 6
Retirement ........................................................................................................................ 6
Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020 ........................................................................... 7
Current Financial Situation ................................................................................................. 7
Changes in Financial Situation over Time .......................................................................... 16
Income ............................................................................................................................ 19
Level and Source ............................................................................................................ 19
Changes in Spending and Income ..................................................................................... 21
Income Volatility .............................................................................................................. 23
Employment .................................................................................................................... 25
Layoffs and Job Loss ....................................................................................................... 25
Reasons for Not Working ................................................................................................. 27
Part-Time and Temporary Jobs .......................................................................................... 27
Working from Home ......................................................................................................... 29
The Gig Economy ............................................................................................................. 30
Dealing with Unexpected Expenses .......................................................................... 33
Small, Unexpected Expenses ........................................................................................... 33
Health-Care Expenses ...................................................................................................... 36
Banking and Credit ....................................................................................................... 39
Unbanked and Underbanked ............................................................................................ 39
Credit Outcomes and Perceptions ..................................................................................... 41
Credit Cards ................................................................................................................... 41
Banking Problems ........................................................................................................... 43
Housing ........................................................................................................................... 47
Households .................................................................................................................... 47
Changes in Household Composition .................................................................................. 48
Moving ........................................................................................................................... 49
Homeownership .............................................................................................................. 51
Renting and Evictions ...................................................................................................... 51
vi Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Education ........................................................................................................................ 53
Disruptions to Primary and Secondary School Education .................................................... 53
Disruptions to Enrollment in Higher Education ................................................................... 54
Quality of Online Higher Education .................................................................................... 55
Overall Value of Higher Education ..................................................................................... 59
Look Back on Education Decisions ................................................................................... 61
Student Loans ................................................................................................................ 63
Incidence and Types of Education Debt ............................................................................. 63
Student Loan Payment Status .......................................................................................... 65
Relation to Financial Well-Being ........................................................................................ 67
Retirement ...................................................................................................................... 69
Current Retirees .............................................................................................................. 69
Retirement Savings among Non-Retirees ........................................................................... 71
Comfort Managing Savings and Financial Literacy .............................................................. 74
Description of the Survey ............................................................................................ 77
Survey Participation ......................................................................................................... 77
Targeted Outreach and Incentives ..................................................................................... 78
Survey Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 78
Survey Mode ................................................................................................................... 79
Sampling and Weighting ................................................................................................... 79
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... 81
1
Executive Summary
This report describes the responses to the 2020 Survey of Household Economics and Decision-
making (SHED). The Federal Reserve Board has fielded this survey each fall since 2013 to under-
stand the wide range of financial challenges and opportunities facing families in the United
States.1 The findings in this report primarily reflect financial circumstances in the fourth quarter
of 2020.
When the Federal Reserve Board created the SHED, the economy was still recovering from the
Great Recession, and the survey helped monitor that recovery and identify possible risks to the
financial stability of U.S. families. In 2020, the United States dealt with unprecedented challenges
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. This annual survey, along with two supplemental surveys
conducted earlier in the year, provides insights into the challenges that people were facing as a
result, as well as the effects of efforts to alleviate these financial difficulties.2
The pandemic caused substantial disruptions to many people’s finances, as well as to their daily
lives, even while public policy responses appear to have muted many of the effects. An unprec-
edented share of adults experienced a layoff during the year, many of whom did not expect to
return to their old jobs. Others dealt with disruptions to childcare and remote learning for their chil-
dren. Consistent with the magnitude of these disruptions, the share of adults who said that they
were worse off financially than they were a year earlier was the highest since the survey began
asking this question in 2014. Additionally, as the country dealt with pandemic-related challenges,
the share of adults who thought that their local economy was faring well declined sharply.
Financial hardships caused by the pandemic were counterbalanced by financial relief and stimulus
measures, including the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). In July,
shortly after the enactment of these programs, financial well-being ticked up, as did the share of
adults who would pay a small emergency expense using cash on hand. Yet, by November 2020
financial well-being based on these measures had edged back down.
1
The latest SHED interviewed a sample of over 11,000 individuals in November 2020. The anonymized data, as well as
appendixes containing the complete SHED questionnaire and responses to all questions in the order asked, are also
available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed.htm.
2
Full results from the April 2020 survey are available in the Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in
2019, Featuring Supplemental Data from April 2020, and results from the July 2020 survey are available in the Update
on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households: July 2020 Results. Each of these reports, as well as prior years’ surveys,
are available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed.htm.
2 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Even though many people said they were worse off financially than they were in 2019, most still
said that despite these setbacks they were managing at least okay financially near the end of the
year and, across several measures, appeared to have financial resources similar to those
observed a year earlier. The share of adults who reported doing at least okay financially was
unchanged from a year earlier, and the share of adults who would pay a $400 expense using cash
or a cash equivalent was nearly unchanged. Similarly, rates of bank account ownership and pre-
paredness for retirement were similar to those seen in late 2019.
A clear pattern from the survey is that financial challenges in 2020 were uneven, and frequently
left those who entered the year with fewer resources further behind. Many laid-off workers had lim-
ited financial buffers before the pandemic and exhibited substantial declines in their financial well-
being in the past year. Gaps in financial well-being by race and ethnicity persisted in 2020, and
adults with less than a high school degree fell further behind those with higher levels of education.
The survey also highlights concerns about the academic progress of children and young adults as
schools turned to online classes and distance learning. Many parents of primary and secondary
school children taking online classes did not feel that their children were learning as much as they
would through in-person classes. College students who were taking classes online expressed a
similar sentiment about the quality and value of online education.
In addition to addressing disruptions related to the pandemic, the survey provides insights into
how people viewed their longer-run financial circumstances, including returns to education,
housing satisfaction, and retirement savings. The survey also continued to monitor emerging
issues that may be important to the economy in the future, such as experiences working in the gig
economy. Throughout this report, results are presented for both recent financial developments and
impacts of the pandemic, as well as ongoing trends within various aspects of people’s finan-
cial lives.
Key findings from the survey across the sections of this report include:
Overall Financial Well-Being
Overall financial well-being has fluctuated since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, but by the
fourth quarter of 2020, the share of adults who were doing at least okay financially was unchanged
relative to 2019. That said, not all groups have fared similarly, and persistent disparities in well-being
across education and race remained. Moreover, economic distress from the pandemic was evident
when looking at people’s assessment of their own financial trajectories over the past year and their
assessment of local economic conditions.
Executive Summary 3
• Nearly one-fourth of adults were worse off financially compared to 12 months earlier, up from
14 percent in 2019. This increase occurred broadly across the population, and likely reflects
economic distress resulting from the pandemic.
• Despite the increase in the share doing worse off financially, most still said they were at least
doing okay overall. Seventy-five percent of adults were either doing okay or living comfortably
financially in November, which was unchanged from 2019 after having fluctuated through
the year.
• Adults with at least a bachelor’s degree were much more likely to report doing at least okay
financially (89 percent) than those with less than a high school degree (45 percent). This gap
increased from 34 percentage points in 2019 to 44 percentage points in 2020.
• Less than two-thirds of Black and Hispanic adults were doing at least okay financially, compared
with 80 percent of White adults and 84 percent of Asian adults. The gap in financial well-being
between White adults and Black and Hispanic adults grew by 4 percentage points since 2017.
• Forty-three percent of adults rated their local economic conditions as “good” or “excellent” in
2020, markedly lower than the 63 percent of adults who had a positive assessment of their
local economic conditions in 2019.
Income
Most adults spent less than their income during the month before the survey, although the likelihood
of doing so varied greatly by education. Consistent with the pattern of layoffs, income declines were
greatest among those with less education. However, spending declines were most prevalent among
those with at least a bachelor’s degree.
• Fourteen percent of adults received unemployment income in the prior year, up substantially
from 2 percent in 2019.
• Twenty-four percent of people saw their income increase in 2020, compared with 19 percent
whose income declined. Those with higher levels of education were disproportionately likely to
see income increases.
• Six percent of adults with less than a high school degree said their usual bank account bal-
ances, after paying monthly bills, increased in the prior year. Twenty-five percent said their usual
balances declined. Among adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, this pattern is reversed.
Employment
Fewer people were working in 2020 than in 2019. Many were laid off and had not returned to their
former jobs. The COVID-19 pandemic affected where people work, with large increases in people
working from home, particularly among those with more education.
4 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
• Fourteen percent of adults were laid off at some point in 2020. Less than one-fourth of those
laid off had returned to their old jobs, despite more than 80 percent of laid-off workers saying in
April 2020 that they expected to return.
• Of adults ages 25 to 54 who were not working, roughly equal shares said their lack of employ-
ment was due to health limitations, childcare or family obligations, or because they could not
find work. The share of people not working because they could not find work increased substan-
tially in 2020.
• People with more education were much more likely to work from home during the pandemic than
those with less education. Forty-six percent of employees with bachelor’s degrees worked com-
pletely from home or by telecommuting.
• Four percentage points fewer adults earned money from gigs in 2020 compared with 2019. In
2020, people were less likely to perform service activities that often involve physical contact,
including cleaning, yard work, dog walking, and ride sharing.
Dealing with Unexpected Expenses
The share of adults able to withstand small financial emergencies in November 2020 was similar to
pre-pandemic levels. Nevertheless, financial challenges remained for people who were laid off in the
past year—particularly for Black and Hispanic workers and workers with less education who were
laid off.
• More than one-fourth of adults were either unable to pay their monthly bills or were one $400
financial setback away from being unable to pay them in full.
• Among workers who were laid off, 45 percent were unable to pay their November 2020 bills in
full or would have been unable to do so if faced with an unexpected $400 expense. This share
was substantially higher among Black and Hispanic workers who were laid off, and among
laid-off workers with a high school degree or less.
• Many adults went without some medical care. More than 4 in 10 adults went without medical
care due to an inability to pay, delayed or went without care due to COVID-19 concerns, or both.
Banking and Credit
Most adults had a bank account at the end of 2020. However, substantial gaps in use of, and experi-
ences with, banking and credit services existed—especially among lower-income families and among
Black and Hispanic adults. Since 2019, credit card debt declined for adults overall, but increased for
those who were laid off.
Executive Summary 5
• Five percent of adults did not have a bank account. Differences in bank account ownership were
substantial by education and income. Additionally, Black (13 percent) and Hispanic (9 percent)
adults were more likely not to have a bank account than were adults overall.
• Twenty-nine percent of adults said they experienced a problem when using banking or credit ser-
vices, such as unexpected fees, fraudulent transactions, or delays or problems with customer
service. Those with income below $50,000, and Black and Hispanic adults, were disproportion-
ately affected.
• More credit card holders who were laid off increased their credit card debt (39 percent) than
kept their credit card debt the same or lower.
Housing
Where people live and who they live with took on a particular significance in 2020 because of
restrictions on being outside of the home. Those who moved in 2020 were more likely than in past
years to move away from their usual workplace.
• Employed adults who moved in 2020 were more likely to have moved away from their usual
workplace than to have moved closer to it: 31 percent versus 26 percent.
• Just under 4 in 10 people who changed who they lived with attributed it to COVID-19. For those
with temporary changes in the composition of their household, half attributed the change to
COVID-19.
• One-fifth of all homeowners with a mortgage refinanced their mortgage within the prior year.
Refinances were more common among mortgage holders with income over $100,000, among
whom 26 percent refinanced.
Education
The pandemic has created significant challenges for students of all ages since widespread closures
began in March 2020. Many parents of K–12 students taking classes online expressed concerns
about the quality of that education. Additionally, disruptions to the education system made it more
difficult for some parents to continue to work.
• Nearly three-fourths of parents with children enrolled in primary or secondary school indicated
their youngest school-age child was attending classes completely or partly online. Similarly,
nearly 9 in 10 college students had at least some of their classes online in 2020.
• Twenty-two percent of parents with children taking K–12 classes online said their child was
learning as much as if attending classes in person, whereas 59 percent said they were not.
6 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
• Eleven percent of mothers and 6 percent of fathers said they were not working due to disrup-
tions in childcare or in-person schooling. This translates to nearly 2 percentage points fewer
adults who were working overall.
• When asked whether online learning is worth the cost, 40 percent of students enrolled in higher
education said it was not, compared to 30 percent who said that it was.
Student Loans
Consistent with recent years, most student loan borrowers were current on their payments, although
those who failed to complete a degree, and those who attended for-profit institutions, were more
likely to have fallen behind on their payments. Many borrowers received reductions or delays in pay-
ment due dates for student loan bills since March 2020. Those who received relief reported faring
slightly better financially than those who did not.
• Among borrowers under age 40, those who went to a private for-profit institution were over twice
as likely to be behind on their payments as those who went to a public or private not-for-profit
institution.
• Self-reported financial well-being of borrowers who currently had debt was lower than that for
people with the same amount of education who never had debt or had completely repaid their
education debt.
Retirement
The majority of retirees indicated that a desire to do other things, wanting to spend time with family,
or reaching a regular retirement age played a role in the timing of their retirement. However, life
events appear to have contributed to the timing of retirement for a substantial share—including
some who retired in 2020 who said pandemic-related factors affected the timing of their retirement.
Compared to non-retirees who did not experience a layoff, non-retirees who experienced a layoff
were less likely to have retirement savings but more likely to have borrowed from or cashed out
these accounts in the prior year.
• Forty-five percent of retirees indicated that health problems, needing to care for family, or lack of
work contributed to the timing of their retirement. Twenty-nine percent of adults who retired in
the prior year said factors related to the pandemic contributed to when they retired.
• Forty-two percent of non-retirees who experienced a layoff in the prior year did not have self-
directed retirement savings at the time of the survey. This compares to 26 percent of non-
retirees who did not experience a layoff.
• Nine percent of non-retired adults tapped their retirement savings in the prior 12 months—a
slight uptick from 2019. A higher 14 percent of non-retired adults who had experienced a layoff
borrowed or cashed out funds from their retirement savings.
7
Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020
The financial well-being of U.S. adults has fluctuated since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,
initially declining as of April, and rebounding by July. By the fourth quarter of 2020, the share of
adults who were doing at least okay financially was unchanged relative to 2019 and remained sig-
nificantly above that seen when the survey began in 2013.3
That said, not all groups have fared similarly since 2019, and persistent disparities in well-being
across education, race/ethnicity, and neighborhoods remained. Moreover, looking at the trajectory
of financial well-being reveals that nearly one-fourth of adults were worse off financially than
12 months earlier, the highest share since the survey began collecting this information in 2014.
This increase occurred broadly across segments of the population, and likely reflects financial dis-
tress resulting from the pandemic.
Current Financial Situation
At the end of 2020, three-fourths of adults were doing at least okay financially, meaning they
reported either “doing okay” financially (40 percent) or “living comfortably” (35 percent). The rest
reported either “just getting by” (18 percent) or “finding it difficult to get by” (7 percent). The
75 percent of adults doing at least okay financially in 2020 matched the rates in recent years and
remained well above the 62 percent doing at least this well in 2013 (figure 1).
Although the share of adults doing at least okay has remained unchanged in recent years, results
from supplemental surveys conducted in April 2020 and July 2020 reveal fluctuation in well-being
within the past year.4 The share of adults doing at least okay fell from 75 percent in October 2019
to 72 percent in April 2020, and then rose to 77 percent in July.
As noted in previous reports, the decline in well-being from October 2019 to April 2020 was con-
centrated among those who were laid off or had their work hours cut. The subsequent increase in
well-being seen in July is consistent with some interpretations that many aspects of government
stimulus measures, such as increased unemployment insurance benefits and direct Economic
Impact Payments (also known as stimulus payments), appear to have blunted the negative finan-
3
The survey was fielded in November 2020 and results reflect financial situations at that time. References to “during
2020” refer to the 12-month period before the survey rather than the precise calendar year.
4
The Federal Reserve conducted two supplemental surveys, the first in April 2020 and the second in July 2020, to
monitor the financial well-being of U.S. households during the COVID-19 pandemic. Full results from these supplemental
surveys are available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed.htm.
8 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 1. At least doing okay financially (by year)
Percent 77
74 75 75 75
72
69 70
65
62
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 April 2020 July 2020 2020
Note: Among all adults. Except where specified, results are from the fourth quarter of each year.
cial effects of the pandemic for many families.5 The share doing at least okay financially fell from
its high in July back to 75 percent in November 2020, which may reflect the July expiration of the
extra $600 per week in unemployment insurance benefits and additional time passing since the
CARES Act stimulus payments were received.6
Even as the aggregate share of adults who were doing at least okay remained unchanged in 2020,
some families fared relatively well during the pandemic while others experienced substantial finan-
cial setbacks. As discussed in box 1, people who kept their jobs, and especially those who were
able to work from home, generally entered the year in a relatively strong financial position and saw
further financial improvements in 2020. Conversely, the pandemic disproportionately affected
workers who had limited financial resources before the pandemic and for these individuals it
resulted in further financial setbacks.
5
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) provided enhanced unemployment insurance ben-
efits of $600 per week, which supplemented normal unemployment insurance benefits. In addition, for most U.S. fami-
lies, the CARES Act authorized Economic Impact Payments of $1,200 per adult and an additional $500 per qualifying
dependent child. The amount of the payment also varied with income and tax filing status, phasing out for single filers
with income over $75,000 and married joint filers with income over $150,000. Payment distribution began in
April 2020. For details on the unemployment insurance benefit changes in the CARES Act, see “Unemployment Insur-
ance Relief during COVID-19 Outbreak,” U.S. Department of Labor, 2020, https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/
unemployment-insurance. For details on the Economic Impact Payments, see “Economic Impact Payment Information
Center,” https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payment-information-center.
6
The passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) on December 21, 2020, which reauthorized and
modified many of the relief measures established by the CARES Act, occurred after the survey. The CAA extended the
unemployment insurance supplement originally authorized by the CARES Act but reduced the amount from $600 to
$300. For more information on the CAA see, “Unemployment Insurance Provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 (Division N, Title II, Subtitle A, the Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020),” https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11723.
Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020 9
Box 1. Financial Well-Being for the Same People over Time
The effect of the pandemic on family finances varied widely. People who kept their jobs during the pan-
demic generally had stable or improving finances in 2020. However, those who suffered a layoff and an
extended period of unemployment saw a deterioration of their financial circumstances. Recognizing that
layoffs during the pandemic were concentrated among lower-wage workers, this exacerbated pre-
existing disparities in financial well-being in the United States.
One feature of the SHED is that a subset of respondents also participated in prior waves of the survey.
In 2020, about one-third of respondents had participated in the fall 2019 survey. Consequently, it is
possible to observe the same individuals over time to determine the trajectory of their finances over
the course of the year.
Those who were laid off during the pandemic typically had a relatively small financial cushion to begin
with. Less than two-thirds of those who were laid off were doing at least okay financially in late 2019,
before the job loss.
In general, they also entered the year with limited financial resources to weather an economic down-
turn. Fifty-nine percent did not have emergency savings that could cover three months of expenses in
late 2019, and nearly 4 out of 10 either could not pay all of their monthly expenses in full or did not
expect to be able to do so if faced with a modest emergency expense. Each of these exceeds the
share of the overall population who were ill prepared for financial setbacks.
Those who were laid off and were not working at the time of the survey saw a substantial deterioration
in their financial circumstances. While nearly two-thirds of this group were doing at least okay finan-
cially in 2019, a lower 51 percent were still doing at least okay in late 2020 (table A). Large declines in
more concrete financial measures were similarly apparent. For example, the share expecting to pay
their current month’s bills in full also fell—from 66 percent in 2019 to 58 percent in late 2020 (table B).
Table A. Doing at least okay financially (by year)
Percent
Characteristic 2019 2020 Change
No layoff, working from home full time 85 90 5
No layoff, working but not from home 79 82 3
No layoff, not working 76 75 -1
Laid off, but currently employed 62 60 -2
Laid off, currently not working 65 51 -14
Note: Among respondents who completed both the 2019 and 2020 surveys.
Although they also had limited financial resources at the start of the year, workers who were laid off in
2020 but who were back at work by the time of the survey in November had more muted changes in
well-being. Among this group, there was a far smaller 2 percentage point decline in overall financial
well-being in 2020 when compared to a year earlier and a 4 percentage point decline in the share
expecting to pay all of their monthly bills in full.
In sharp contrast to that seen for those out of work after a layoff, those who kept their jobs fared rela-
tively well financially in 2020. Additionally, across each financial metric considered, those who worked
from home in 2020 had relatively high levels of financial well-being leading into the pandemic and
appeared to be even better off financially by the end of the year. Nine out of 10 people who were
(continued on next page)
10 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Box 1. Financial Well-Being for the Same People over Time
—continued
Table B. Expect to pay all current monthly bills in full (by year)
Percent
Characteristic 2019 2020 Change
No layoff, working from home full time 91 92 1
No layoff, working but not from home 87 89 2
No layoff, not working 85 83 -1
Laid off, but currently employed 82 78 -4
Laid off, currently not working 66 58 -8
Note: Among respondents who completed both the 2019 and 2020 surveys.
working from home in late 2020 were doing at least okay financially, up 5 percentage points from how
the same group was faring a year earlier.
The scale of layoffs during the pandemic was unprecedented, with 14 percent of all adults suffering a
layoff in the past year. Those who were not laid off appeared to be faring relatively well, on average, in
late 2020. This has contributed to the relative strength of aggregate economic statistics. Yet, those
who were laid off faced markedly different circumstances. Laid-off workers generally had fewer financial
resources to begin with, and the layoffs appear to have resulted in additional financial strain for their
families.
In addition to the different trends in overall well-being based on employment circumstances, differ-
ences across education groups remained substantial and in some cases grew markedly. Adults with
at least a bachelor’s degree were significantly more likely to be doing at least okay financially
(89 percent) than those with less than a high school degree (45 percent). This gap increased from
34 percentage points in 2019 to 44 percentage points in 2020, reflecting the sharp decline in well-
being for those with less than a high school degree (figure 2). Moreover, looking over the past
five years shows a steady and sizable increase in well-being among those with at least a bach-
elor’s degree (an increase of 9 percentage points in the share doing at least okay from 2015 to
2020), while adults with less than a high school degree have not experienced any lasting gains in
well-being.
Differences in financial well-being across racial and ethnic groups were larger than the differences
seen in 2019. Nearly two-thirds of Black and Hispanic adults were doing at least okay financially,
compared with 80 percent of White adults and 84 percent of Asian adults.7 The difference in the
7
The 2020 survey, for the first time since the survey began in 2013, was able to include Asian as a separate racial and
ethnic category. However, the relatively small sample of Asian adults means that results are not broken out for all statis-
tics. Additionally, results for surveys before 2020 continue to only include White, Black, and Hispanic racial and ethnic
categories. The reported categorizations reflect the largest statistical groupings but are neither exhaustive nor the only
Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020 11
Figure 2. At least doing okay financially (by year and education)
Percent 88 89
87
85
82
80
77 77
75
73
72
70
68
66
62 62 67 68 67
64 65
64
56
60 54
55 49
48
47 46 45
42
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Bachelor’s degree Some college/technical High school Less than a high
or more or associate degree degree or GED school degree
Note: Among all adults. Key identifies curves in order from top to bottom.
share of White adults doing at least okay financially compared with Black and Hispanic adults has
grown by 4 percentage points since 2017. This growth reflects the steady increase in financial
well-being for White adults, and the slight decline in financial well-being for Black and Hispanic
adults in recent years (figure 3).
Financial well-being also varied by sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2020, 68 percent of
adults identifying as LGBTQ+ were doing at least okay financially, compared with 75 percent of the
overall population.8 Moreover, an even lower 61 percent of LGBTQ+ adults identifying as trans-
gender or nonbinary, or as having a sexual orientation other than gay, lesbian, or bisexual, were
doing at least okay financially.
Although there are many potential reasons for gaps in financial well-being by race and ethnicity,
sexual orientation, and gender identity, one contributing factor may be discrimination. More than
one-fifth of Black adults and nearly one-fifth of adults identifying as LGBTQ+ reported that they
experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the past year because of their race, ethnicity,
age, religion, disability status, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity.9 Among the overall
distinctions important to understand. Sample sizes for other racial and ethnic groups and subpopulations are not large
enough to produce reliable estimates.
8
Survey respondents could report their sexual orientation, gender assigned at birth, and gender identity. Respondents are
classified as LGBTQ+ based on responses to these questions.
9
The discrimination reported by Black adults was predominantly ascribed to race or ethnicity, while the discrimination
reported by those identifying as LGBTQ+ was more evenly dispersed across that due to sexual orientation, gender, age,
and race or ethnicity.
12 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 3. At least doing okay financially (by year and race/ethnicity)
Percent 84
80
79
78
77
72
71
68
67
66 66
65
64 64
63 66
65 65
64 64
61
56
55
55
53
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Asian White Hispanic Black
Note: Among all adults. Only White, Black, and Hispanic race and ethnic categories were reported prior to the 2020
survey. Key identifies curves in order from top to bottom.
adult population, 10 percent of adults reported that they experienced discrimination for one of
these reasons.10
Moreover, Black adults and LGBTQ+ adults were much more likely to report that they experienced
employment or workplace discrimination than the overall population: 9 percent of Black adults and
8 percent of LGBTQ+ adults said they experienced employment discrimination, compared with
4 percent of the overall population. (See box 2 for more detail on discrimination, particularly with
respect to race and ethnicity).
Other dimensions across which financial well-being differed include income, marital status, and
neighborhood income (table 1). Fifty-two percent of adults with family income less than $25,000
were doing at least okay financially, compared with 95 percent of adults with income greater than
$100,000. Married individuals were generally more likely to be doing at least okay financially than
unmarried individuals. People living in low- or moderate-income (LMI) communities also had lower
levels of well-being than those living in middle- or upper-income communities. Additionally, those
living in metro areas were faring better than those in non-metro communities.11
10
These estimates may underestimate the prevalence of discrimination if people experienced discrimination that they were
unaware of or overestimate it if perceived discrimination is misattributing actions.
11
Non-metro areas are defined throughout this report as being outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and metro
areas are those inside of an MSA, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. This definition differs from the
Census Bureau’s definition of urbanized areas. For details, see U.S. Census Bureau, “2010 Urban Area FAQs,” https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/faq/2010-urban-area-faq.html.
Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020 13
Box 2. Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
In 2020, Black and Hispanic adults faced challenges across numerous measures, including overall
financial well-being, employment, ability to pay bills, and credit access. Although these challenges likely
have numerous interrelated causes, many adults reported experiencing racial discrimination, including
in specific contexts that could negatively impact financial well-being.
Ten percent of adults reported they experienced discrimination in the 12 months before the survey, and
two-thirds of those who did said they faced racial discrimination.1 Although racial and ethnic discrimina-
tion was the type most commonly cited, other respondents reported discrimination or unfair treatment
occurred across a range of protected classes, including age, religion, disability status, sexual orienta-
tion, gender, and/or gender identity.2 Sixty-six percent of those who reported discrimination cited racial
discrimination, while 38 percent reported discrimination based on age and 37 percent based on gender
(table A).
Table A. Basis of discrimination experienced in the prior 12 months
Among adults
Characteristic experiencing Among adult population
discrimination
Race or ethnicity 66 6
Age 38 4
Gender 37 4
Religion 15 2
Disability status 15 1
Sexual orientation 12 1
Overall 100 10
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select more than one category.
Moreover, Black adults overall were more likely to report discrimination of some form than adults of
other racial and ethnic groups. More than one-fifth of Black adults reported experiencing discrimination
in the prior year. Thirteen percent of Asian adults, 13 percent of Hispanic adults, and 6 percent of
White adults reported discrimination. In 2020, evidence suggests that a somewhat larger share of dis-
crimination occurred among Asian adults than was the case in 2019.3
(continued on next page)
1
The survey asked respondents about discrimination they observed themselves, known as perceived discrimination. Other methods,
such as audit studies, can detect discrimination that may go undetected by the person affected (see Devah Pager and Hana
Shepherd, “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets,” Annu.
Rev. Sociol. 34 (2008): 181–209). Moreover, perceived discrimination is associated with harmful effects on mental well-being (see
Michael T. Schmitt, Nyla R. Branscombe, Tom Postmes, and Amber Garcia, “The Consequences of Perceived Discrimination for
Psychological Well-Being: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Psychological Bulletin 140, no. 4 (2014): 921; and E.A. Pascoe and L. Smart
Richman, “Perceived Discrimination and Health: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Psychological Bulletin, 135, no. 4 (July 2009): 531–54).
2
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In the June 2020
ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court held that title VII’s protections cover sexual orientation and gender
identity.
3
In 2019, Asian adults were included in the “other, non-Hispanic” category. In 2020, data on Asian adults were reported separately.
However, in 2020, Asian adults made up a substantial majority (82 percent) of the “other non-Hispanic” category. Therefore, this
category is a reasonable proxy measure of Asian adults to compare between 2019 and 2020. In 2020, 9 percent of all adults
reporting discrimination were “other, non-Hispanic” adults, compared to 7 percent in 2019. The uptick occurred as the share of
“other non-Hispanic” adults who reported discrimination was nearly unchanged, whereas it declined for adults across all other racial
and ethnic groups.
14 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Box 2. Racial and Ethnic Discrimination—continued
Those who reported discrimination faced discrimination or unfair treatment in a variety of aspects of
life (table B). The most frequently cited contexts for experiencing discrimination were shopping and
working or applying for a job. Of those adults who reported discrimination, 44 percent (4 percent of all
adults) said they were shopping, and 43 percent (4 percent of all adults) said they were working or
applying for a job.4 Moreover, evidence shows that discrimination in employment contributes to differ-
ences in earnings across racial and ethnic groups.5
While fewer adults reported experiencing discrimination while banking or applying for a loan than in
other contexts, this form of discrimination can affect access to safe and affordable financial services.
Black and Hispanic adults were more likely to be denied credit than other racial and ethnic groups. Fur-
thermore, concerns about discrimination deter some people from trying to access financial products,
even if they would qualify.
Table B. Context of discrimination experienced in the prior 12 months
Percent
Among adults
Among adult
Characteristic experiencing
population
discrimination
Shopping for goods or services, including restaurants 44 4
Working or applying for a job 43 4
Interacting with the police or a government official 23 2
Receiving or scheduling medical care 13 1
Banking or applying for a loan 13 1
Renting or buying a home 11 1
Other activities not listed (please specify) 13 1
Overall 100 10
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select more than one category.
Among those adults who reported facing banking discrimination, 45 percent desired more credit but did
not apply because they expected a denial. This far exceeds the 11 percent of people who did not report
banking discrimination, but desired credit that they did not apply for.
These differences in credit access can have financial repercussions during economic downturns, as
credit can be one way to manage fluctuations in income. Indeed, a larger share of adults who were laid
off reported they had more debt at the time of the survey than one year prior, compared to adults who
did not face a layoff. This approach of borrowing to weather a financial hardship is less available to
those who have less access to banking and credit products for any reason, including discrimination.
4
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the nature of shopping, dining, and employment for many, which may have affected the frequency
and type of discrimination reported in 2020.
5
For a summary of research on discrimination in labor markets, see William A. Darity, Jr. and Patrick L. Mason, “Evidence on
Discrimination in Employment: Codes of Color, Codes of Gender,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, no. 2 (1998): 63–90 and
David Neumark, “Experimental Research on Labor Market Discrimination,” Journal of Economic Literature, 56, no. 3 (2018):
799–866.
Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020 15
Given the potential economic repercussions of
Table 1. Share of adults doing at least okay
the pandemic, the 2020 survey included five financially (by demographic characteristics)
additional questions on financial well-being Percent
that were last asked in the 2017 survey.12 Characteristic 2020
1-year 5-year
change change
These questions were developed by the Con-
Family income
sumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to
Less than $25,000 52 0 10
measure financial well-being among U.S. $25,000–$49,999 65 -2 4
adults by combining an individual’s responses $50,000–$99,999 84 0 11
to the five questions into a single “financial $100,000 or more 95 0 11
well-being score,” ranging from 0 to 100. Race/ethnicity
White 80 1 9
Research has shown that a score of 50 or
Black 64 -2 3
below on this scale is associated with a high
Hispanic 64 -2 1
likelihood of material hardship, such as the
Asian 84 n/a n/a
inability to afford food, medical treatment, Marital status
housing, or utilities.13 Single 67 2 7
Living with a partner 65 2 -1
Based on the CFPB score, 38 percent of Married 82 -2 6
Parental status
adults had a high likelihood of material hard-
No children 78 1 8
ship in 2020. As was also seen in the share
Children 67 -4 3
“just getting by” or “finding it difficult to get
Place of residence
by,” adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, Metro area 76 0 7
White adults, and people living in metro areas Non-metro area 69 -3 2
exhibited higher levels of financial well-being Neighborhood income
than the overall population (table 2). Low or moderate income 62 -2 n/a
Middle or upper income 80 0 n/a
Overall 75 0 7
Recent changes in well-being, based on the
Note: Among all adults. Low- or moderate-income neighbor-
CFPB score, were similar to changes seen in hoods are defined here as those census tracts with a median
the share of adults doing at least okay finan- household income less than 80 percent of the national median
income. Here and in subsequent tables and figures, percentages
cially. The share with a high likelihood of expe- may not sum to 100 due to rounding and question non-
response. Census tracts were not included in the 2015 SHED, so
riencing material hardship decreased slightly changes in neighborhood income since 2015 are not available.
n/a Not applicable.
for adults overall and for nearly all subgroups.
Consistent with the results described earlier,
the notable exception was for adults with less
12
The first three questions ask respondents how well the following statements describe them or their situation: “because
of my money situation, I feel like I will never have the things I want in life;” “I am just getting by financially;” and “I am
concerned that the money I have or will save won’t last.” The final two questions ask respondents how often each of
these statements apply to them: “I have money left over at the end of the month” and “My finances control my life.”
13
The CFPB’s financial well-being scale was included on the SHED in 2017 and again in 2020. See Financial Well-Being in
America (September 2017), www.consumerfinance.gov/documents/5606/201709_cfpb_financial-well-being-in-
America.pdf, for details on the development of these questions and their relation to material hardships. Mapping to the
well-being scale uses Austin Nichols’s PFWB package in Stata: Austin Nichols, “PFWB: Stata Module to Predict Financial-
Well-Being Scale Scores from CFPB Survey Instrument,” Statistical Software Components S458353 (2017), Boston Col-
lege Department of Economics.
16 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
than a high school degree, who saw a 3 per-
Table 2. Share of adults with high likelihood of
material hardship (by select characteristics) centage point increase in the share with a
Percent high likelihood of material hardship.
3-year
Characteristic 2020
change
Education Changes in Financial
Less than a high school degree 62 3 Situation over Time
High school degree or GED 47 -2
Some college/technical or
The survey also tracks overall economic well-
associate degree 43 -3
Bachelor’s degree or more 25 -5 being by asking respondents whether they are
Race/ethnicity better or worse off financially than they were
White 34 -4 12 months earlier. Measuring well-being in
Black 44 -2 this way helps track changes in perceived well-
Hispanic 50 -2
being over time, as some individuals may feel
Asian 33 n/a
worse off financially than they were a year ear-
Place of residence
lier, for instance, even if they feel they are still
Metro area 38 -4
Non-metro area 43 -2 doing okay overall (or that their financial well-
Overall 38 -3 being is improving even if they are still strug-
Note: Among all adults. High likelihood of material hardship gling overall).14
based on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau financial
well-being score.
n/a Not applicable. Indeed, the share of adults who said they
were worse off financially than a year earlier
increased to the highest level since 2014,
even though the share of adults doing at least okay financially remained unchanged.15 In 2020,
nearly one-fourth of adults were worse off financially compared to a year earlier, up from 14 per-
cent in 2019 (figure 4). One-fourth of adults were better off compared to a year ago, down 7 per-
centage points from 2019. The share of adults doing about the same financially compared to a
year ago was 51 percent, a modest decline from 2019.
The rise in the share of people who were worse off financially was widespread, but those with less
than a high school degree were especially likely to be worse off. Thirty-six percent of people with
no high school degree were worse off financially in 2020 than they were a year earlier. In 2019, a
far smaller 18 percent of those with no high school degree were worse off than they were the year
before. The share of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree who were worse off also rose, from
10 percent to 18 percent, but remained well below that seen among people with less education.
14
For example, someone who was laid off in the past year, but is receiving unemployment benefits to make up for lost
income, might feel they are doing okay financially. However, if comparing to a year ago, before the layoff, they might also
feel that they are worse off now given that they were laid off and are relying on government assistance.
15
The 2013 survey asked respondents if they were better off now financially than five years ago and therefore is not com-
parable with later surveys.
Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020 17
The shares of both metro and non-metro resi-
Figure 4. Worse off financially than 12 months
dents who were worse off financially com- ago (by year)
pared to a year ago nearly doubled from 2019
to 2020. Twenty-four percent of metro resi- Percent 24
dents were worse off in 2020, up 11 per- 21
centage points from a year earlier, and 27 per- 19
17
cent of non-metro residents were worse off in
15
2020, up 12 percentage points. 14
13
The widespread increase in adults doing
worse off financially compared to a year ear-
lier likely reflects the broad impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic on the economy.
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
To get a longer-term perspective, individuals Note: Among all adults.
were also asked to compare their current
financial circumstances to how they perceived
their parents’ financial situation at the same age. Looking across a generation shows evidence of
economic progress over time, despite financial setbacks during the pandemic. A majority of adults
(54 percent) thought they were better off financially than their parents were, although this is a
slight decline from 2019 when 57 percent thought they were better off. Twenty-one percent
thought they were worse off than their parents were at the same age.
Having at least a bachelor’s degree is generally associated with greater rates of upward economic
mobility than having less education. This is particularly true among first-generation college gradu-
ates, among whom two-thirds (67 percent) thought they were better off financially than their par-
ents were.16
Local Economic Conditions
Along with questions about their own financial circumstances, people were asked to assess their
local economy. The share of adults rating their local economy as “good” or “excellent” declined
precipitously from 2019 to 2020. Forty-three percent of adults rated their local economic condi-
tions as “good” or “excellent” in 2020, with the rest rating conditions as “only fair” or “poor.” This
share was markedly lower than the 63 percent of adults who had a positive assessment of their
local economic conditions in 2019.
16
First-generation college graduates are those who have at least a bachelor’s degree and who report that neither of their
parents completed at least a bachelor’s degree.
18 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
The decline in positive assessments of one’s
Figure 5. Self assessment of the local economy
as good or excellent (by select characteristics) local economy occurred broadly across dif-
ferent demographic groups and geographies
Race/ethnicity (figure 5). For example, from 2019 to 2020,
White 46 67
the share of adults rating their local economy
Black 32 46
Hispanic 39 57 as “good” or “excellent” fell from 65 percent
Place of residence
Metro area 44 65
to 44 percent for metro residents and from 53
Non-metro area 35 53 percent to 35 percent for non-metro residents.
Neighborhood income
Low or moderate income 31 46
Middle or upper income 48 70 Looking across demographic groups and geog-
Overall 43 63
raphies also shows that despite the broad
2020 2019 Percent
declines, gaps in how people assessed their
Note: Among all adults. Asian adults omitted because local economies persisted in 2020. Whereas
data are not available for 2019. Only White, Black, and
Hispanic race and ethnic categories were reported 46 percent of White adults and 44 percent of
prior to the 2020 survey. Key identifies circles in order Asian adults viewed their local economic con-
from left to right.
ditions as good or excellent, 32 percent of
Black adults and 39 percent of Hispanic
adults rated their local economies favorably.
Adults who live in LMI neighborhoods were much less likely to rate their local economy favorably
than those in middle- or upper-income neighborhoods.
19
Income
The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession caused many workers to lose their jobs in
2020. Yet, relief measures in the form of stimulus payments and additional unemployment insur-
ance payments helped alleviate financial challenges.
To capture the extent that people could cover their monthly expenses without incurring debt, the
survey asked a series of questions related to income level and sources, income volatility, and
spending. Most adults spent less than their income during the month before the survey, although
a considerable minority had monthly spending that exceeded their income. Additionally, individuals
who were laid off during the previous year were more likely to report economic hardship as a result
of income that varies from one month to the next.
Level and Source
Family income in this survey is the cash income from all sources that the respondents and their
spouse or partner received during the previous year.17 Just under 3 in 10 adults had a family
income below $25,000 in 2020, and 45 percent had less than $50,000 (table 3).
Table 3. Family income (by race/ethnicity)
Percent
Characteristic Less than $25,000 $25,000–$49,999 $50,000–$99,999 $100,000 or more
White 21 17 28 33
Black 41 20 23 16
Hispanic 42 18 22 18
Asian 22 11 23 43
Overall 28 17 25 29
Note: Among all adults.
Family income varied dramatically by demographic characteristics, including race and ethnicity.
Forty-one percent of Black adults and 42 percent of Hispanic adults had a family income below
17
Income is reported in dollar ranges rather than exact amounts. Previous reports on the SHED discussed the financial
well-being of individuals making less than $40,000 per year. This threshold was set because in 2013 when the survey
began, $40,000 was approximately 80 percent of the U.S. median household income of $51,939. In 2019, the median
household income was $68,703. To reflect the rise in median income, this report now focuses on individuals making
less than $50,000 per year—but where possible also separates out those making less than $25,000. For additional
details on U.S. median household incomes, see Jessica Semega, Melissa, Kollar, Emily A. Shrider, and John F. Cremer,
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, September 2020).
20 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
$25,000. Conversely, White and Asian adults were disproportionately likely to have family income
above $100,000.
Respondents were also asked about the sources of income that they and their spouse or partner
received. Wages, salaries, and self-employment (collectively referred to here as labor income) was
the most common source of income in 2020: 67 percent of adults and their spouse or partner
received labor income (figure 6). Yet, 61 percent of adults and their spouse or partner also
received non-labor income in 2020, up from 54 percent in 2019.18 This increase was driven by a
sharp rise in the number of adults receiving unemployment income. Fourteen percent of adults
received unemployment income in 2020, up from 2 percent in 2019.
Figure 6. Family income sources
Wages, salaries, or 69
self-employment income
67
Non-labor income
33
Interest, dividends,
or rental income
32
26
Social Security
(including old age and DI)
27
Supplemental Security 5
Income (SSI), TANF,
or cash assistance
from a welfare program 5
2
Unemployment income
14
54
Any non-labor income
61
2019 2020 Percent
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select multiple answers. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
Assistance from nonprofits and private sources—including financial support from a friend of family
member living outside of their home—also played a role. Sixteen percent of adults ages 21 and
older received at least one type of assistance from private or nonprofit sources in 2020 (table 4).
Nearly 1 in 10 adults received financial assistance from a friend or family member living outside of
18
Non-labor income is defined as income from interest, dividends, or rental income; social security (including old age and
Disabled Individual (DI); Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or cash
assistance from a welfare program; unemployment income; or income from a pension. Non-labor income does not
include Economic Impact Payments, tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, or in-kind benefits.
Income 21
Table 4. Providing and receiving support (by education)
Percent
Received at least
Received Received support
Provided support 1 type of private
Education free groceries from non-house-
to others or nonprofit
or meals hold member
support
Less than a high school degree 13 30 13 35
High school degree or GED 13 15 7 19
Some college/technical or associate degree 18 13 9 18
Bachelor’s degree or more 19 4 6 9
Overall 17 11 8 16
Note: Among adults age 21 and older. Respondents could select multiple answers.
their home, essentially unchanged from 2019. More than 1 in 10 adults received groceries or
meals from a food pantry, religious organization, or community organization in 2020.
Adults with less education were more likely to receive at least one type of assistance from private
or nonprofit sources: more than one-third of adults with less than a high school degree received
assistance from private or nonprofit sources, compared to less than 1 in 10 adults with at least a
bachelor’s degree.
Additionally, 17 percent of adults provided financial support to others. Those with more education
were more likely to provide financial support: one in five adults with at least a bachelor’s degree
provided financial support to someone outside the home in 2020.
Changes in Spending and Income
Many families saw their financial circumstances change in 2020. Twenty-four percent of people
saw their income increase in 2020, compared with 19 percent whose income declined. This slight
improvement was largely driven by those with higher levels of education.
Adults with less education were more likely to have experienced income declines. Among adults
with less than a high school degree, 23 percent had income that declined (figure 7). This
exceeded the 17 percent of those with at least a bachelor’s degree who experienced an income
decline. Among adults who experienced a layoff during the previous year, nearly one-half also saw
their total monthly income decline relative to a year earlier.
By contrast, those with more education were the most likely to have reduced their total monthly
spending. Fewer than 2 in 10 adults with a high school degree or less had lower monthly spending
compared to a year ago. However, 27 percent of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree
22 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 7. Decreases in income and spending relative to a year ago (by education)
23
19
Income
21
17
17
19
Spending
21
27
Less than a high High school degree Some college/technical Bachelor’s degree Percent
school degree or GED or associate degree or more
Note: Among all adults. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
decreased their spending. Changes in spending are also related to employment disruptions, as
just over one-third of adults who were laid off also spent less compared to a year earlier.
Consistent with these trends, adults with more education also were more likely to have increased
the amount in their checking or savings account. Among adults with at least a bachelor’s degree,
nearly 3 in 10 experienced an increase in their usual bank account balance after paying their bills
compared to a year earlier, exceeding the 16 percent who saw a decline. Among adults with less
than a high school degree, this pattern is reversed, as 6 percent said their usual account balance
increased, whereas 25 percent said it declined.
When asked to compare spending and income levels during the previous month, 55 percent of
adults spent less than they made—a 3 percentage point increase from 2019. Nearly 3 in 10
adults had spending equal to their income. The remaining 16 percent of adults spent more than
their income.
While the majority of adults spent less than they made during the previous month, this share
varies by whether or not the person experienced a layoff and lives in a LMI neighborhood (table 5).
One in four adults who experienced a layoff, and more than one in five adults living in LMI neigh-
borhoods, had spending that exceeded their income.
Individuals with less education also were more likely to say they spent more than their income.
The share of adults who spent less than their income increased among those with more
Income 23
Table 5. Spending relative to income (by employment, education, and neighborhood income)
Percent
Less than The same as More than
Characteristic
your income your income your income
Employment
Laid off 43 31 25
Not laid off 57 28 14
Education
Less than a high school degree 35 40 24
High school degree or GED 49 34 16
Some college/technical or associate degree 53 30 17
Bachelor’s degree or more 65 22 12
Neighborhood income
Low or moderate income 46 33 21
Middle or upper income 59 27 14
Overall 55 29 16
Note: Among all adults.
education. In fact, those with at least a bachelor’s degree were 30 percentage points more likely
to have spent less than their income than adults with less than a high school degree.
Income Volatility
Some people have income that varies through the year. Since many bills have to be paid monthly,
variations in income can lead to financial challenges. The survey asked respondents about the
consistency in their monthly income, and whether income volatility led to financial challenges.
Despite the disruptions caused by the pandemic, more than 7 in 10 adults had income that was
roughly the same each month, matching the rate from 2019. Since income volatility can result
from either dips or spikes in monthly income, the survey then assessed the relationship between
income volatility and economic hardship. It did so by asking those who reported varying income
whether they struggled to pay bills as a result. More than one-third (37 percent) of those who
experienced income volatility, representing slightly more than 1 in 10 adults overall, said they
struggled to pay their bills at least once in the past 12 months due to varying income.
Those who experienced a layoff during the previous year, and those with lower income, were more
likely to both have income volatility and report related hardship (table 6). In fact, nearly 3 in 10
adults who experienced a layoff in 2020 struggled to pay bills at least once in the past year
because of variability in their income. Similarly, 2 in 10 adults with a family income below $25,000
reported hardship caused by varying income.
24 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Table 6. Income volatility and related hardship (by layoff in prior 12 months and family income)
Percent
Varying income, Varying income,
Characteristic Stable income
caused hardship no hardship
Employment
Laid off 29 22 48
Not laid off 8 17 75
Family income
Less than $25,000 20 21 58
$25,000–$49,999 14 15 71
$50,000–$99,999 7 17 76
$100,000 or more 2 18 79
Overall 11 18 71
Note: Among all adults.
Income volatility also continued to vary greatly by industry in 2020, with workers in the leisure and
hospitality industry having the most unstable income (figure 8). Leisure and hospitality workers
also reported the largest rates of hardship from income volatility. Although leisure and hospitality
workers experienced substantial job losses from COVID-19, volatile income within this industry pre-
dated the pandemic. The high rates of income volatility within this industry were similar to those
observed in 2019, even though a disproportionately large share of leisure and hospitality workers
also saw their income decrease in the past year.
Figure 8. Income varies at least occasionally from month to month (by industry)
Leisure and hospitality 48
Construction 44
Natural resources and mining 42
Other services 39
Wholesale and retail trade 38
Transportation and utilities 37
Education and health services 29
Manufacturing 28
Information 25
Professional and business services 25
Financial activities 23
Public administration 23
Armed forces 15
Percent
Note: Among adults who report industry of employment.
25
Employment
Fewer people were working in late 2020 than before the COVID-19 pandemic, and layoffs fre-
quently fell on workers who were already in more precarious financial positions. Employment
losses were largely due to layoffs in March that many workers expected to be temporary. Yet at the
time of the survey, many laid-off workers had not returned to their old jobs.
Beyond the effects of the pandemic on the availability of work, the 2020 survey showed the wide
array of work arrangements, including part-time and gig work, and the varied reasons that some
people were not working. More people cited lack of work in 2020, but many others were not
working because of concerns over their health or because of their obligations to care for others.
An especially large share of people worked from home, though doing so was far more common
among workers with college degrees.
Layoffs and Job Loss
The pandemic led to large declines in employment, with many layoffs occurring in March 2020.19
Four percentage points fewer adults were working in late 2020 compared with 2019, and 14 per-
cent of all adults were laid off over the prior year.
Adults with less education were more likely to have been laid off. Sixteen percent of adults with
less than a college degree were laid off in the prior year, compared with 11 percent of adults with
at least a bachelor’s degree. Among prime-age adults (ages 25 to 54) who were more likely to be
working before the pandemic, 20 percent with less than a bachelor’s degree were laid off, com-
pared with 12 percent of those with at least a bachelor’s degree (figure 9).20 Hispanic and Black
adults were also particularly likely to have been laid off. Over 20 percent of both Black and His-
panic prime-age adults were laid off in the prior 12 months.
Slightly less than one-fourth of adults who were laid off in the prior 12 months had returned to
their former jobs as of late 2020 (figure 10), and 52 percent had either returned to or expected to
return to their former jobs in the future. In contrast, the April 2020 SHED supplement found that
19
For more detail, see the Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019, Featuring Supplemental Data
from April 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2019-report-economic-well-being-us-households-
202005.pdf.
20
Another way to consider layoffs among those most connected to the labor force is to look at respondents who com-
pleted the survey in both 2019 and 2020 and were working at the time of the 2019 survey. Twenty percent of people
with less than a bachelor’s degree who were working in 2019 were laid off in 2020, compared to 10 percent of those
with at least a bachelor’s degree.
26 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 9. Layoffs among prime-age adults (by education and race/ethnicity)
Education
Less than a high 23
school degree
High school degree or GED 19
Some college/technical 21
or associate degree
Bachelor’s degree or more 12
Race/ethnicity
White 14
Black 23
Hispanic 21
Asian 13
Percent
Note: Among prime-age adults 25 to 54.
Figure 10. Expectations about returning to work and current employment for laid-off workers
Not expecting to return, 24
not employed
Not expecting to return, employed 23
Expecting to return, not employed 12
Expecting to return, employed 17
Already returned 24
Percent
Note: Among people laid off from a job in the prior 12 months.
86 percent of workers who had been laid off between February and April had expected to return to
their former jobs at that time. In November, 24 percent of laid-off adults were not expecting to
return and did not have another job.21
People who were laid off were doing worse financially, and those who were laid off and still not
working were faring particularly poorly financially. Fifty-six percent of workers who were laid off
21
This question includes all people laid off from November 2019 until the survey. Consequently, the number of people who
returned to their jobs could be lower than for layoffs beginning in March 2020 from the April and July 2020 SHED
supplements. People who are expecting to return to their old jobs may either be employed in other jobs or unemployed.
Employment 27
Figure 11. Share of laid-off workers doing at least okay financially (by employment status and
expectations about returning to work)
Not expecting to return, not employed 44
Not expecting to return, employed 57
Expecting to return, not employed 49
Expecting to return, employed 53
Already returned 72
Percent
Note: Among people laid off from a job in the prior 12 months.
were doing at least okay financially, compared with 78 percent of those who were not laid off. An
even smaller 44 percent of laid-off workers who were neither expecting to return to their old jobs
nor working at another job were doing at least okay financially (figure 11).
Reasons for Not Working
Twenty-six percent of prime-age adults were not working in the month leading up to the survey, up
from 21 percent in 2019. The most commonly cited reasons for not working were health limita-
tions, an inability to find work, and childcare or family obligations; each was cited by 9 percent of
all prime-age adults (or one-third of those not working) (figure 12).
Not being able to find work was much more frequently cited in 2020 compared with 2019,
increasing by four percentage points among all prime-age adults. Health limitations and childcare
or family obligations had more modest increases, each increasing by around 1 percentage point.
Women who were not working disproportionately said that childcare and family obligations kept
them from formal employment (figure 13). Fourteen percent of all prime-age women (43 percent of
prime-age women who were not working) cited either childcare or family obligations. A smaller
5 percent of all prime-age men (24 percent of those not working) cited these reasons.
Part-Time and Temporary Jobs
Fourteen percent of adults worked part time and 4 percent said that their main job was a tempo-
rary position. The share of adults who were working part time declined by 2 percentage points
28 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 12. Reasons for not working among Figure 13. Reasons for not working among
prime-age adults (by year) prime-age adults (by gender)
8
Health 8
limitations Health
9 limitations
10
Childcare or 8
family Childcare 5
obligations 9 or family
obligations 14
5
Could not 8
find work Could not
9 find work
9
2
School or 2
training School or
2 training
3
1
1
Retired
Retired
1
1
Other *
2 2
Other
2
2019 2020 Percent
Men Women Percent
Note: Among prime-age adults 25 to 54. Respondents
could select multiple answers. Childcare and family
Note: Among prime-age adults 25 to 54. Childcare and
obligations were asked as two separate questions but
family obligations were asked as two separate ques-
are combined for the purpose of this report. Key iden-
tions but are combined for the purpose of this report.
tifies bars in order from top to bottom.
Respondents could select multiple answers. Key iden-
* Less than 0.5 percent. tifies bars in order from top to bottom.
from 2019 to 2020.22 Part-time work was more common among women than among men. Six-
teen percent of women worked part time, while 11 percent of men did.
Slightly more than half of part-time workers said that they would like to work more hours. In par-
ticular, 70 percent of Hispanic and 53 percent of Black part-time workers said they wanted to
work more hours. Hispanic adults were also slightly more likely to be working part time than
workers overall.
People who had a part-time or temporary job reported more financial strain than people who
worked full time. Thirty percent of part-time workers and 33 percent of temporary workers said
that they were either just getting by or finding it difficult to get by. A smaller 17 percent of perma-
nent, full-time workers reported the same levels of financial strain.
22
Using the overlapping respondents with the 2019 survey, 24 percent of people working part time in 2019 lost a job in
the subsequent year, compared to 13 percent of people who were working full time in 2019.
Employment 29
Some workers also had irregular schedules. Sixteen percent of employees had a work schedule
that varied based on their employer’s needs. Ten percent of employees had a schedule that varied
at their own request. Collectively, just over one-fourth of employees had a varying work schedule.
Workers with irregular schedules they do not control tend to be under more financial strain.
Thirty percent of workers with a schedule that varied based on their employer’s needs said that
they were either just getting by or finding it difficult to get by. This compares with 18 percent of
workers with a fixed schedule or with a schedule that they control.
Working from Home
A major change in many people’s work environment since 2019 is the prevalence of working from
home. In 2020, 29 percent of adults who worked for someone else worked entirely from home or
by telecommuting. This is similar to the 31 percent who worked entirely from home in July, but
down from the 41 percent who did in April. In contrast, only 7 percent of adults who worked for
someone else typically worked from home in 2019.23
Workers with more education have been much Figure 14. Amount of work done from home (by
more likely to work from home during the pan- education)
demic. Forty-six percent of workers with at
least a bachelor’s degree worked entirely from
home in the month before the survey High school degree 82 7 10
or less
(figure 14). Nineteen percent of workers with
Some college/
some college, and 10 percent with a high technical or 69 12 19
associate degree
school degree or less, worked entirely
Bachelor’s degree 35 19 46
from home. or more
None Some All Percent
Older workers were less likely to work from
home. Twenty-five percent of employees ages Note: Among adults who worked for someone else.
Key identifies bars in order from left to right.
55 to 64 worked entirely from home. For com-
parison, 33 percent of employees ages 25 to
34, as well as those ages 35 to 44, worked
entirely from home or telecommuted.
23
The question asked in 2019 was different from 2020. The 2019 survey asked where people worked in their main jobs
most of the time.
30 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
The Gig Economy
Gig activities (gigs) in this report include paid childcare, house cleaning, ride sharing, selling
goods, and renting out property.24 Most gigs predate the internet, though some occur online. They
do not always fit into standard concepts of “employment” because people can do gigs occasion-
ally and without firm time commitments. Yet gigs could help people to supplement income, and,
for some people, they are a primary source of income.
Although gigs can help to supplement income after layoffs, the large number of layoffs in 2020
were not accompanied by an increase in the share of adults who performed gig activities. Instead,
4 percentage points fewer adults said that they earned money from gigs in the month before the
2020 survey compared with 2019. Still, 27 percent of people earned some money from gigs, and
8 percent were regular gig workers, in that they spent 20 or more hours in the prior month on gigs.
Figure 15. Time spent and money earned on
Many people who performed gig activities
gigs compared to 12 months ago also said that they spent less time on and
earned less money from gigs compared to a
year prior. Around 30 percent of people who
Time spent 29 44 26 did gig activities said that they earned less
money and spent less time in the last month
Money earned 30 45 25
compared with a year ago (figure 15). Roughly
Less About the same More Percent 25 percent said that they were spending
more time on and earning more money
Note: Among adults performing any gig activities. Key
identifies bars in order from left to right. from gigs.25
Gig work frequently supplemented earnings from a traditional job. Nearly half (47 percent) of gig
workers also had full-time jobs, while 22 percent had part-time jobs. Thirty-one percent were not
working for pay or profit in the last month, aside from their gig work.26
24
The list of gig activities and analysis of their relationship to reported employment was similar to Anat Bracha and Mary
Burke, “Informal Work in the United States: Evidence from Survey Responses,” Current Policy Perspectives (Boston: Fed-
eral Reserve Bank of Boston, 2014). For the further development of the gig questions now used in the SHED, see
Barbara Robles and Marysol McGee, “Exploring Online and Offline Informal Work: Findings from the Enterprising and
Informal Work Activities (EIWA) Survey,” Finance and Economics Discussion series 2016-089 (Washington: Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 2016).
25
The change in intensity of gig work was only asked of respondents who engaged in any gig activities so will not include
those who stopped performing gig work completely. Fifty-four percent of respondents for both the 2019 and 2020 sur-
veys who performed gigs in 2019 did not perform any gigs in 2020, so they did not receive a question about how they
changed their gig activities in 2020.
26
Gig questions are asked separately from the standard employment questions. Most regular gig workers said that they
are working in typical employment questions. However, 2 percent of adults said that they were both not employed and
spending at least 20 hours on gig activities in the prior month.
Employment 31
Since many gig workers had other jobs, few relied on gigs as a primary source of income.
Three percent of all adults (11 percent of gig workers) earned at least half of their income in the
past year from gigs. Even among regular gig workers, slightly less than one-fourth earned at least
half of their income in the past year from gig work.
Supplemental income from gigs also appeared to have played a limited role in smoothing people’s
earnings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fewer people performed gig activities in 2020 and earn-
ings from gigs were most often less than half of people’s total earnings, even for regular gig
workers. Additionally, 21 percent of people doing gig activities said that their work in the gig
economy increased how much their income varies from month to month. Nine percent of all people
who perform gig activities said that the activities reduced the amount that their income varied.27
Although some of this gig work was coordi-
Table 7. Share of adults performing gig
nated online, most people coordinated gigs activities
without apps or online platforms. Four- Activities Percent
teen percent of adults who performed gig Sales activities
activities both found customers and received Sold goods online 9
payments through an app or online platform, Sold goods at flea markets 5
Sold goods at consignment shops 3
but 85 percent did not. Apps were slightly
Sold goods at events you plan 1
more common among regular gig workers,
Any sales activities 13
although even among this group just 20 per-
Service activities
cent used an app or online platform both to House cleaning, yard work, or property
find customers and to receive payments. Each maintenance 6
Childcare or eldercare services 3
number has grown by 1 percentage point
Renting out property, such as your car or house 3
from 2019.
Dog walking, feeding pets, or housesitting 2
Driving or ride sharing, such as with Uber or Lyft 2
Selling goods made up a substantial share of Paid tasks online 2
gig activities reported in 2020 (table 7). Thir- Other paid personal tasks 4
teen percent of all adults sold goods to make Any service activities 16
money in the month before the survey, Other activities
Any other paid activities 4
including 9 percent who sold goods online and
7 percent who sold goods in person (3 per- Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select multiple
answers.
cent did both). The share of adults who sold
goods in the gig economy ticked down by
1 percentage point since 2019.
27
Even if it does not reduce monthly income volatility, gig work can be used to offset lost work from formal jobs. In the
Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2016 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/
2016-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201705.pdf), 56 percent of adults performing informal gig work who
experienced a job loss or decline in wages in their family felt that this income was somewhat or very important for off-
setting the negative effects of reduced hours or wages in a formal job.
32 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Among people who sold goods, 72 percent
Figure 16. Types of items sold in the gig
economy sold goods that they previously owned for their
own use, such as used clothing (figure 16).
Previously owned
People less frequently sold goods that they
items for own 72
personal use acquired to resell, made themselves, or sold
Purchased items on behalf of a company.
to resell 22
for a profit
Made or 18 In addition to selling goods, 16 percent of
repurposed items
people performed service activities, such as
Items sold on
behalf of 6 house cleaning, yard work, or property mainte-
a company
Percent nance; childcare; renting out property; dog
walking; and ride sharing. The most frequent
Note: Among adults selling goods as a gig activity.
Respondents could select multiple answers. type of service activity was house cleaning,
yard work, or maintenance, which 6 percent of
adults earned money doing in the past year.
Since performing services often involves physical proximity, concerns about COVID-19 likely led to
a decline in the share of adults performing services as a gig activity. The share performing service
activities declined by 4 percentage points since 2019, and the decline occurred across many ser-
vice activities.
33
Dealing with Unexpected Expenses
The overall share of adults able to withstand small financial emergencies was similar to pre-
pandemic levels; however, financial challenges remained for the millions of Americans who have
been laid off in the past year. After rising in July above pre-pandemic levels while many relief poli-
cies were in place, the share of adults able to withstand small financial emergencies returned to
pre-pandemic levels by November. However, many Americans faced a substantial financial setback
when they lost their jobs during the pandemic. Those who were laid off then faced lower rates of
preparedness for additional financial emergencies both large and small. Among laid-off workers,
Black and Hispanic workers and those with less education, in particular, faced challenges covering
additional financial emergencies.
Small, Unexpected Expenses
Relatively small, unexpected expenses, such as a car repair or a modest medical bill, can be a
hardship for many families. When faced with a hypothetical expense of $400, 64 percent of all
adults in November 2020 said they would have covered it exclusively using cash, savings, or a
credit card paid off at the next statement (referred to, altogether, as “cash or its equivalent”)—
largely unchanged from 2019 (figure 17). However, in July 2020 when pandemic-related relief
Figure 17. Would cover $400 emergency expense completely using cash or its equivalent (by year)
Percent
70
63 64 64
61
59
56
53 54
50
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 April 2020 July 2020 2020
Note: Among all adults. Except where specified, results are from the fourth quarter of each year.
34 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
policies reached many households, this figure
Figure 18. Other ways individuals would cover
a $400 emergency expense was a higher 70 percent. The decline from July
to November is consistent with some families
Put it on a credit spending down additional savings from these
card and pay it 15
off over time relief programs over time. In November, just
Borrow from a half of adults who were laid off in the past
friend or 9
family member 12 months would have covered the expense
Sell something 6 with cash or its equivalent.
Use money from
a bank loan or 2
line of credit The 35 percent of adults who would not have
Use a payday loan, paid completely with cash or its equivalent
deposit advance, 1
or overdraft may have had more difficulty covering such an
Would not be able expense. For these adults, the most common
to pay for the 12
expense right now approach was to use a credit card and then
Percent
carry a balance, although many indicated they
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select mul- would use multiple approaches (figure 18).28
tiple answers.
Twelve percent of all adults said they would be
unable to pay the expense by any means,
matching that seen in 2019.
To understand more about covering household expenses, the survey asked about adults’ ability to
pay their monthly bills. More than one-fourth of adults had one or more bills that they were unable
to pay in full that month or were one $400 financial setback away from being unable to pay them.
This includes 16 percent of adults who were unable to pay their bills in full in November. Consis-
tent with results on how people would cover a $400 expense, this share was slightly lower in
July 2020 (15 percent).
Being unable to pay bills on time can have serious consequences. For renters facing challenges
paying their bills, 36 percent (4 percent of all adults and 16 percent of all renters) said they would
not have anywhere to go if they had to move out of their home because they could no longer make
their rent payments. (See the “Housing” section of this report for more on evictions).
Those who were laid off in the 12 months before the survey were more likely to have difficulty
meeting their regular monthly expenses. Forty-five percent of adults who were laid off in the prior
year were unable to pay their bills in full or would have been unable to do so if faced with an unex-
pected $400 expense, versus 24 percent of those who were not laid off.
28
However, it is possible that some who would not have paid with cash or its equivalent still had access to $400 in cash.
Instead of using that cash to pay for the expense, they may have chosen to preserve their cash as a buffer for other
expenses (see box 3 from the Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019, Featuring Supplemental
Data from April 2020).
Dealing with Unexpected Expenses 35
Differences in ability to pay bills among those
Figure 19. Not able to fully pay current month’s
who were laid off differed substantially across bills (by layoff in prior 12 months and
race/ethnicity)
education levels. Among those who were laid
off, more than 6 in 10 with a high school
degree or less were unable to pay their bills in Not laid off
full or would have been unable to do so if
White 9 9 18
faced with an unexpected $400 expense, com-
Black 26 13 39
pared with 24 percent of adults with at least a
bachelor’s degree. Hispanic 21 17 38
Laid off
Black and Hispanic adults who were laid off
White 23 13 36
were also less well positioned to handle an
Black 55 10 64
additional financial setback compared to the
Hispanic 37 18 55
overall population of laid-off workers
(figure 19). Among laid-off Black workers,
Cannot pay Could not pay some Percent
64 percent were unable to pay their bills in full some bills bills if faced with a
$400 emergency expense
or would have been unable to do so if faced
with an unexpected $400 expense, compared Note: Among all adults. Key identifies bars in order
from left to right.
with 45 percent of all laid-off adults.
A number of interrelated factors, including dif-
ferences in wages earned at different education levels, discrimination, or differences in credit
access, could have contributed to this difference. (See the “Education” section of this report for a
discussion of education, box 2 on “Racial and Ethnic Discrimination” for a discussion of discrimi-
nation, and the “Banking and Credit” section for differences in credit access.)
Some financial challenges, such as a job loss, require more financial resiliency than would an
unexpected $400 expense. One common measure of financial resiliency is whether people have
savings sufficient to cover three months of expenses if they lost their primary source of income.
Fifty-five percent of people said they had set aside money specifically as emergency savings or
“rainy day” funds. However, those who experienced a layoff may have dipped into those funds or
not had them in the first place (see box 1). Forty percent of adults who were laid off in the past
12 months could not cover three months of expenses by any means were they to lose their job or
government benefits. Among adults who were not laid off, a lower share (28 percent) could not
cover these expenses.
36 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Health-Care Expenses
Out-of-pocket spending for health care is a common unexpected expense that can be a substantial
hardship for those without a financial cushion, particularly during a global pandemic threatening
both families’ health and financial stability. As with the financial setbacks discussed earlier, many
adults were not financially prepared for health-related costs at the time of the survey.
Seventeen percent of adults had major, unexpected medical expenses in the prior 12 months, with
the median amount between $1,000 and $1,999. Sixteen percent of adults had debt from their
own medical care or that of a family member, potentially from more than a year ago. Moreover, mil-
lions of Americans had contracted COVID-19, and 6 percent of all adults paid out-of-pocket for
COVID-19-related medical care.
Though many adults went without medical care because they couldn’t afford it, the COVID-19 pan-
demic added another reason to go without care. Twenty-three percent of adults went without
medical care due to an inability to pay. Even more adults, 30 percent, delayed or did not receive
care because of safety concerns or difficulty accessing care due to COVID-19. Overall, more than
4 in 10 adults delayed or skipped treatments due to COVID-19 concerns, went without medical
care due to inability to pay, or both.
Figure 20. Forms of skipped medical treatment
Those who went without medical care due to
due to cost during 2020 inability to pay went without a variety of dif-
ferent types of care. Dental care was the most
frequently skipped, followed by visiting a
Dental care 17
doctor (figure 20). Some people also reported
Seeing a doctor 13 skipping prescription medicine, follow-up care,
or specialist
Prescription
or mental health visits. Going without mental
medicine 8
health care may have been particularly difficult
Follow-up care 8 due to the pandemic, including for those who
Mental health care have suffered from addiction and face
or counseling 7
pandemic-related stressors that may lead to
Percent
substance abuse.29
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select mul-
tiple answers.
There was a strong relationship between
family income and individuals’ likelihood of
skipping medical care for cost reasons.
29
As evidence of this pattern, the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have accelerated increases in drug overdose deaths,
with synthetic opioids being the primary driver; see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health Alert Network
Advisory HAN00438,” December 17, 2020, https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2020/han00438.asp.
Dealing with Unexpected Expenses 37
Among those with family income less than $50,000, 35 percent went without some medical care
because they couldn’t afford it. In 2020, 19 percent of adults with income between $50,000 and
$100,000, and 8 percent of adults making $100,000 or more, went without care.
Ability to afford health care may contribute to the finding that, as family income rises, the likeli-
hood a person reported being in good health increases substantially. Among those in families with
income less than $50,000, 78 percent reported being in good health, compared to 93 percent for
those in families with income of $100,000 or more.30
Health insurance is one way that people can pay for routine medical expenses and protect against
the financial burden of large, unexpected expenses. In 2020, 90 percent of adults had health
insurance, largely unchanged from 2019. The majority of adults had health insurance through their
employers. However, many adults lost jobs in 2020 and may have also lost health insurance.
Nearly one in five adults who had been laid off in the past 12 months were uninsured as of
November 2020.
30
This relationship also holds if focusing only on adults of different income levels within the same age range.
39
Banking and Credit
Access to banking and credit services from traditional financial-service providers, like banks and
credit unions, can be important for people’s financial well-being. Most adults had a bank account
and were able to obtain credit from mainstream sources in 2020, but notable gaps in access to
basic financial services still exist among minorities and those with low income.
In 2020, credit card borrowers reduced their outstanding balances, and fewer adults used their
credit cards to carry balances from one month to the next. Additionally, the share of adults
applying for credit declined, as did the share of adults using alternative financial services. How-
ever, despite the overall decline in credit card borrowing, credit card balances increased for people
who were laid off in the prior 12 months.
Unbanked and Underbanked
Most adults in the United States (81 percent) were “fully banked,” meaning that they had a bank
account and, in the past 12 months, did not use any of the alternative financial services asked
about in the survey. Such services include money orders, check cashing services, payday loans or
payday advances, pawn shop loans, auto title loans, or tax refund advances.
An additional 13 percent had bank accounts Figure 21. Banking status
but made use of alternative financial services.
These adults are considered “underbanked”
Unbanked, 5%
because the banking services they accessed Fully banked, 81% Underbanked, 13%
appear to have been insufficient to meet their
financial service needs.
The rest of the adult population (5 percent)
did not have a bank account (figure 21). Less
than half of these “unbanked” adults used
alternative financial services.
Unbanked and underbanked rates were higher
among adults with lower income, adults with
less education, and Black and Hispanic Note: Among all adults.
adults. The largest differences were by educa-
40 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Table 8. Banking status (by family income, education, and race/ethnicity)
Percent
Characteristics Unbanked Underbanked Fully banked
Family income
Less than $25,000 16 21 63
$25,000–$49,999 3 19 78
$50,000–$99,999 1 12 88
$100,000 or more 1 5 94
Education
Less than a high school degree 26 24 51
High school degree or GED 8 15 76
Some college/technical or associate degree 4 16 79
Bachelor’s degree or more 1 8 92
Race/ethnicity
White 3 9 88
Black 13 27 59
Hispanic 9 21 70
Asian 3 7 89
Overall 5 13 81
Note: Among all adults.
tion and income level. Twenty-six percent of adults with less than a high school degree, and
16 percent of adults with income below $25,000, were unbanked (table 8). The share of people
with income under $25,000 without a bank account far exceeded that of the two highest income
levels. As a result, 84 percent of all unbanked adults had income below $25,000, and 94 percent
had income below $50,000.
Adults with less education and adults with lower income were also more likely to be underbanked.
Nearly one-fourth of those with less than a high school degree and 21 percent of those with
income less than $25,000 were underbanked.
Overall, the share of adults who were fully banked was slightly higher, and the shares of unbanked
and underbanked slightly lower, than previous years. While some of the growth in the share of
adults who were fully banked reflected a growing number of adults with a bank account, most of
the growth came because fewer people used alternative financial services.
Continuing a trend from previous years, the share of adults using alternative financial services
was 3 percentage points lower than it had been in 2019, a decline of 15 percent. Declines were
similar for people with and without bank accounts, which suggests that the decline in the use of
alternative financial services may not be attributed to wider availability of banking services.
Banking and Credit 41
Credit Outcomes and Perceptions
Thirty-seven percent of adults applied for
Table 9. Denied credit or approved for less
credit in 2020, a significant decline from the than was requested (by family income and
41 percent who applied in 2019. But among race/ethnicity)
Percent
those who applied, the share who were either
Denied or
denied credit, or approved for less credit than
approved for
Characteristic Denied
they requested, remained comparable to pre- less than
requested
vious years at 31 percent. Consistent with the
Less than $50,000
lack of change in denial rates, consumer confi-
White 33 42
dence about credit card applications held Black 52 62
steady. Sixty-one percent of adults were “very Hispanic 47 58
confident” and 19 percent were “somewhat Asian 16 23
confident” that their application would be Overall 39 48
$50,000–$99,999
approved, both comparable to the confidence
White 17 23
expressed in 2019.
Black 30 41
Hispanic 30 42
The share of adults who were denied credit, or Asian 8 17
approved for less than requested, differed by Overall 20 28
income level and by race and ethnicity $100,000 or more
(table 9). Almost half of credit applicants with White 7 10
Black 23 30
income below $50,000 experienced such
Hispanic 16 21
actions, compared with only 13 percent of
Asian 5 11
those with income above $100,000. Denial
Overall 9 13
rates also differed by race and ethnicity, and All income levels
these differences occurred at each income White 19 24
level. For a given income level, Black and His- Black 41 51
panic applicants were denied credit at higher Hispanic 36 46
Asian 9 16
rates than the overall population, while White
Overall 24 31
and Asian applicants were denied at
Note: Among adults who applied for some form of credit in the
lower rates. past 12 months.
Credit Cards
People use credit cards in different ways. Some use credit cards as a convenient, if not necessary,
way to pay expenses, paying off their balances in full each month and avoiding any interest costs.
Others carry a balance and thus use credit cards as a source of credit to defer out-of-pocket
expenses.
42 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Eighty-three percent of adults had a credit card in 2020. They were evenly split between the
people who paid off their balances in each of the previous 12 months and people who carried bal-
ances from month to month at least once in the prior year. Among those who carried a balance at
least once, over 75 percent were carrying a balance at the time of the survey.
Almost all people with income over $100,000 had a credit card, and most people with income
over $50,000 had a credit card. At lower income levels, having a credit card was less common.
But adults with income under $100,000 who had credit cards were more likely to use them to
carry balances from month to month. Consequently, middle-income adults were the most likely to
have a credit card that they used to finance purchases by carrying balances from one month to the
next. About half of people with income between $25,000 and $100,000 carried a balance on a
credit card at least once in the past 12 months, exceeding the shares of adults with either lower
or higher income levels who did so (table 10).
Similar patterns were observed across education levels, with more-educated adults being both
more likely to have a credit card and less likely to carry a balance from one month to the next.
Table 10. Credit card access and usage (by demographic characteristics)
Percent
Share of credit card
Share of adults who
holders who carried a
Share of adults with a carried a balance at
Characteristics balance at least once
credit card least once during the
during the last
last 12 months
12 months
Family income
Less than $25,000 56 32 57
$25,000–$49,999 85 51 60
$50,000–$99,999 94 49 52
$100,000 or more 98 37 38
Education
Less than a high school degree 48 29 59
High school degree or GED 74 43 58
Some college/technical or associate degree 82 48 59
Bachelor’s degree or more 96 35 37
Race/ethnicity
White 87 38 44
Black 72 53 73
Hispanic 76 49 64
Asian 92 27 30
Overall 83 41 50
Note: Among all adults. Carried a balance in the last 12 months includes adults who carried an unpaid balance from one month to the next at
least once in the 12–month period.
Banking and Credit 43
Credit card usage also differs by race and ethnicity. Over 90 percent of Asian adults had a credit
card but just 3 in 10 of those who did carried a balance at least once in the past year. Black and
Hispanic adults were more likely to carry balances on their credit cards than other racial or
ethnic groups.
Overall, in the past 12 months, many people have reduced their credit card debt. Thirty-
four percent of credit card borrowers with outstanding debt had less debt in 2020 than one year
earlier, compared with 26 percent who had more debt. This pattern is notably different from the
results in previous years, where the share of credit card borrowers having more and less debt
respectively were about even.
One group that had not reduced its credit card debt was adults who were laid off at some point in
the past year. More credit card borrowers who were laid off increased their credit card debt
(39 percent) than kept their credit card debt the same or lower (figure 22). This elevated use of
credit card debt after a layoff is consistent with prior years’ surveys, although the share who were
laid off was far greater in 2020.
Figure 22. Credit card debt compared to a year prior (by layoff in prior 12 months)
Not laid off 36 40 24
Laid off 28 33 39
Overall 34 39 26
Percent
Less debt now About the same More debt now
Note: Among people with at least one credit card. Key identifies bars from left to right.
The overall decline in credit card debt can be accounted for by credit card borrowers who did not
experience a layoff. Compared to credit card borrowers who did not experience a layoff in previous
surveys, there was about a 5 percentage point increase in the share who reported having less
debt than one year prior and a similar percentage point decrease in the share reporting
more debt.
Banking Problems
The 2020 survey introduced a series of questions that asked whether people encountered dif-
ferent problems when using banking and credit services. Overall, 29 percent of adults said they
44 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
experienced at least one of the five problems asked about. The most common problem, fraudulent
transactions, affected 16 percent of adults. This was followed by unexpected fees (11 percent)
and customer service delays or problems (8 percent). The remaining issues, closed accounts and
credit limit reductions, were less common, affecting fewer than 1 in 20 adults (table 11).
People of all income and education levels reported banking issues, but those with income below
$50,000 were disproportionately affected. These lower-income adults reported unexpected fees,
customer service delays or problems, and closed bank accounts at higher rates than the popula-
tion as a whole. This was despite the fact that people with income below $50,000 were less likely
to have bank accounts or credit cards. The only exception was fraud, which was most common
among adults with income greater than $100,000.
White adults were the only racial or ethnic group who reported banking issues at a rate below that
of the population as a whole. In contrast, banking issues were most common among Black
(33 percent) and Hispanic (34 percent) adults. In particular, Black and Hispanic adults were more
likely to report unexpected fees, closed accounts, and credit line reductions than the population
as a whole.
Table 11. Banking issues (by family income, education, and race/ethnicity)
Percent
Delays or
Fraudulent problems with Bank locked or Credit
Characteristics Unexpected fees
transactions customer closed account limit reduced
service
Family income
Less than $25,000 14 13 9 6 4
$25,000–$49,999 16 16 10 5 5
$50,000–$99,999 11 17 7 3 5
$100,000 or more 6 19 7 2 4
Education
Less than a high school degree 15 12 11 7 4
High school degree or GED 10 13 5 3 4
Some college/technical or associate degree 13 16 9 5 5
Bachelor’s degree or more 10 18 8 3 4
Race/ethnicity
White 9 16 6 3 3
Black 15 16 10 7 8
Hispanic 17 16 10 6 7
Asian 11 16 11 3 4
Overall 11 16 8 4 5
Note: Among all adults.
Banking and Credit 45
Similar differences by race and ethnicity are observed within all four income levels. As with those
for adults with income below $50,000, these results occur despite the above-average rates at
which Black and Hispanic adults are unbanked or underbanked. The only problem that affected all
racial or ethnic groups proportionally was fraudulent transactions.
47
Housing
Housing decisions are intertwined with people’s relationships and their finances. As they enter
adulthood, many young adults live with their parents, but as they get older, they tend to live inde-
pendently or with a spouse or partner. However, some older adults also live with parents in order
to provide care to them.
Where people live and who they live with took on a particular significance in 2020 because of
restrictions on being outside of the home. Fewer people reported moving in 2020 compared with
previous surveys. In contrast to 2019, however, those who moved (“movers”) in 2020—
particularly movers with at least a bachelor’s degree—were more likely to move farther from their
usual workplaces. In general, these moves were voluntary, although financial difficulties can con-
tribute to forced moves due to evictions. Renters with children were more likely to report an evic-
tion than other renters.
Households
Eighty-five percent of adults lived with other people in 2020, usually a spouse or a partner and fre-
quently their children under age 18 (table 12). Half of all adults lived in a household with a spouse
or partner or with a child under age 18 and with no one else. However, a sizable number lived in
other types of households. For example, 28 percent lived in a household that contains multiple
generations of adults, meaning that the adult respondents either lived with their parents or adult
children. Households sometimes contained
other relatives, as well as non-relatives, but
these arrangements were less common. Table 12. Other people living in household
Category Percent
Older adults, and older women in particular,
Live alone 14
were the most likely to live alone. Twenty- Spouse or partner 65
two percent of adults age 65 or older lived Children under age 18 25
alone, and 29 percent of women age 65 or Adult children 16
older lived alone. For adults age 75 or older, Parents 13
Brothers or sisters 6
the shares were higher.
Other relatives 4
Other non-relatives 5
Adults in their early 20s were very likely to live
Note: Among all adults. Adult children includes those in school
with their parents. But by their mid and late and not in school. Respondents (other than those who live
alone) can select multiple answers.
20s, young adults were more likely to live with
48 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Table 13. Reasons for living with parents (by age)
Percent
Reason 22–24 25–29 30–44 45–59
To save money 90 87 68 43
To help those living with me financially 33 46 51 57
To care for family member or friend 24 42 57 83
To receive help with childcare 5 9 18 8
Prefer living with others 43 44 35 18
Note: Among people living with parents. Respondents could select multiple answers.
spouses or partners. The share of young adults living with a parent fell with age, from 46 percent
of 22- to 24-year-olds to 26 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds. Conversely, the share living with a
spouse or partner increased with age, from 29 percent of 22- to 24-year-olds to 55 percent of
25- to 29-year-olds.31
Adults who lived with their parents most commonly did so to save money, and this was especially
true for young adults. Overall, nearly three-fourths of people who lived with their parents said they
lived with others to save money. Among adults ages 22 to 29, nearly 90 percent said that they did
so to save money (table 13). Older adults who lived with their parents were less likely to give this
reason, however. A larger share of adults ages 30 to 44 who lived with their parents received
assistance with childcare than was the case for younger adults.
Another common reason for living with parents was to provide care, especially as people get older.
Forty-four percent of people who lived with their parents gave this reason. Adults in their 30s, 40s,
and 50s who lived with their parents were more likely to say that they lived with others for care-
giving reasons. Eighty-three percent of 45- to 59-year-olds who lived with their parents said they
lived with others to provide care.
Changes in Household Composition
Eighteen percent of adults changed who they lived with in 2020, and these changes were more
common among younger adults. Almost one-third of 22- to 24-year-olds changed who they lived
with, compared with 24 percent of those in their late 20s. A smaller 16 percent of those in their
30s or early 40s did so. However, the frequency of changes in who people lived with increased
slightly among 45- to 59-year-olds to 19 percent, possibly because of adult children moving out, or
sometimes back in.
31
Eight percent of 22- to 24-year-olds lived with a spouse, while the other 21 percent were living with a partner that they
were not married to.
Housing 49
In keeping with the age patterns, it was much more common for people who had a household
change to live with parents or their adult children. Seventeen percent of those who reported a
change in household members lived with their parents, and 23 percent lived with their adult
children.
Some people said that COVID-19 was a factor
Table 14. Other people living in the household
in their household change. Just under 4 in 10 among those who changed who they live with
(by whether the household change was for
people who changed who they lived with attrib- COVID-related reasons)
uted it to COVID-19. Among those who Percent
expected the change to be temporary, Change not Change due
COVID-19 was more of a factor. For those with Category due to to
COVID-19 COVID-19
temporary changes in the composition of their
Live alone 16 9
household, half attributed the change to Spouse or partner 58 66
COVID-19.32 Children under age 18 25 29
Adult children 19 30
Adults who said their household changed Parents 16 20
Brothers or sisters 6 11
because of COVID-19 were more likely to be
Other relatives 6 7
living with parents, adult children, siblings, or
Other non-relatives 12 15
non-relatives than those whose household
Note: Among people who changed who they lived with in 2020.
changed for other reasons (table 14). Respondents could select multiple answers.
Thirty percent of people who changed who
they lived with due to COVID-19 said that they
lived with their adult children at the time of the survey, and 20 percent said they lived with their
parents. Each rate is higher than that seen among people whose change in their household was
not related to COVID-19.
Moving
Fewer people reported moving in 2020 than in recent years. Seventeen percent of all adults said
they moved to their home within the past two years, including 9 percent who moved into their cur-
rent home in 2020. The share of adults who moved within the past two years is down 3 per-
centage points from 2019 and 4 percentage points from 2018. Also, relatively few people made
long distance moves—only 2 percent of all adults moved across state lines in 2020.
Moving was generally associated with an increasing distance from family, friends, and other
informal supports, and the pattern has continued in 2020. Thirty percent of people who moved in
2020 said they moved farther away from family, while 23 percent said they moved closer
32
Respondents defined household changes as either “temporary” or “permanent” themselves, without prompts about how
long a permanent change would have to last.
50 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 23. Distance to friends, families, and workplaces after moving in 2020
Extended family 23 47 30
Friends 17 46 36
Usual workplace 26 42 31
Closer Same distance Farther away Percent
Note: Among people who moved in 2020. Distance relative to one’s usual workplace is among employed adults. Key
identifies bars in order from left to right.
(figure 23). Thirty-six percent said they moved farther from friends, compared with 17 percent who
moved closer.
People who moved into their homes in 2020 were more likely than those who moved in 2019 to
have moved away from their usual workplace. More employed adults who moved said that they
moved away from their workplace than said they moved closer to work (31 percent versus 26 per-
cent). In 2019, those who moved were slightly more likely to move closer to work (28 percent)
than farther away (26 percent).
Workers with at least a bachelor’s degree were particularly likely to move away from workplaces,
which may reflect their higher rates of remote work during the pandemic. Thirty-six percent of
employed adults with at least a bachelor’s degree who moved in 2020 moved away from their
usual workplace. This exceeds the 25 percent of movers with a high school degree or less who
moved away from work.
Additionally, the relationship is the reverse of that seen among people who moved into their cur-
rent home in 2019. Twenty-four percent of movers with at least a bachelor’s degree moved away
from work in 2019, compared with 32 percent of those with a high school degree or less.
There is, however, some indication that people expected that movements away from workplaces
could be temporary. Thirty-six percent of people who moved away from their workplace in 2020
said that they did not expect to be living in their current homes a year after the survey. This
exceeds the 29 percent of all people who moved in 2020 who expected to still be in their new
homes after a year.
Housing 51
Homeownership
Nearly two-thirds of adults owned their homes,
Figure 24. Homeownership rate (by age)
though young adults, as well as Black and His-
panic adults, were less likely to own. Twenty-
nine percent of 18- to 29-year-olds owned 18–29 29
their homes, compared with 85 percent of 30–44 59
people age 60 and older (figure 24). Young 45–59 74
adults under age 30 were more likely than 60+ 85
older adults to have housing arrangements Percent
other than owning or renting, such as living
Note: Among all adults.
with a parent rent-free. Seventy percent of
White adults owned their homes, as did
65 percent of Asian adults, 51 percent of
Black adults, and 50 percent of Hispanic adults
(figure 25).
Figure 25. Homeownership rate (by
Many homeowners took advantage of low race/ethnicity)
interest rates in 2020 to refinance their mort-
gages. One-fifth of all homeowners with a
White 71
mortgage refinanced their mortgage within the
Black 51
prior year. However, it was predominantly
Hispanic 50
higher-income homeowners who opted to refi-
Asian 65
nance (figure 26). Twenty-six percent of mort-
Percent
gage holders with income of at least
$100,000 per year refinanced within the past Note: Among all adults.
year, compared to 17 percent of those with
income between $50,000 and $100,000 and
12 percent of those with income under
$50,000. In addition, Black mortgage holders
Figure 26. Share of homeowners with a
were less likely to have refinanced within the mortgage who refinanced in the prior year (by
family income)
past year (13 percent) than mortgage holders
in other racial or ethnic groups.
Less than $25,000 12
Renting and Evictions $25,000–$49,999 13
$50,000–$99,999 17
$100,000 or more 26
Renting can enable people to move and give
Percent
them the convenience of not having to
manage repairs, among other benefits. But Note: Among homeowners with a mortgage.
52 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
renting can also lead to less stable living arrangements and less control over living spaces and
repairs.
One potential convenience of renting is having
Table 15. Problems with rental units and
difficulty getting repairs a landlord who promptly makes repairs. Fifty-
Response Percent
three percent of renters said they had a
No repair needed 47 problem that needed to be fixed in the prior
Needed repairs, but did not contact landlord 7 12 months. Seven percent of renters needed
Difficulty repairing if contacted landlord a repair but did not attempt to contact their
No difficulty with repairs 19 landlord about it. Forty-two percent of renters
A little difficulty with repairs 12
who attempted to contact their landlord said
Moderate difficulty with repairs 7
the landlord resolved the problem with no diffi-
Substantial difficulty with repairs 8
culty. The rest of the time, however, the repair
Note: Among renters.
involved at least a little difficulty. Eight percent
of renters (17 percent of those who attempted
to contact their landlord) said that the repair
involved substantial difficulty (table 15). Renters who paid higher rents were more likely to have
their problems resolved without experiencing difficulties.
Renters can also be forced to move through an eviction. Among non-homeowners who reported
moving in the last two years, 3 percent said that their last move was due to an eviction or a threat
of eviction, essentially unchanged from 2019.33 This represents 3 million adults. Hispanic adults
were more likely to report moving due to eviction or the threat of eviction in the past year.
Non-homeowners who lived with a child under 18 were more likely to have been evicted or threat-
ened with an eviction. Five percent of non-homeowners who lived with a child reported an eviction-
related move, compared to 3 percent of other non-homeowners.34
33
Some renters who were evicted may be living with others rent-free at the time of the survey, so the questions are asked
of both renters and people who neither own their houses nor pay rent.
34
The finding mirrors ethnographic research in Matthew Desmond’s Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City (New
York: Crown, 2016) showing pathways that can lead to evictions and threats of eviction among families with small
children.
53
Education
Education is widely recognized as a path to higher income and greater economic well-being, but
the pandemic has created significant challenges for students of all ages since widespread clo-
sures began in March 2020. At the time of the survey, the majority of parents of primary or sec-
ondary school children reported that their youngest child in school was attending classes com-
pletely or partly with distance learning. Similarly, most students enrolled in higher education
completed at least some of their classes online since the pandemic began. Many parents of K–12
students, as well as students enrolled in postsecondary educational programs, viewed the quality
of their online education experience to be lower than in-person education along several dimensions.
Disruptions to Primary and Secondary School Education
The pandemic changed the way many children received their education. The mode of learning may
have changed multiple times since initial school closures in March, either by parents’ choices or
by school policies. However, at the time of the survey, most parents said their youngest child
enrolled in K–12 education was attending classes completely or partly online (table 16). Nearly
half of parents with children in school said their youngest child was attending their classes com-
pletely online, while nearly one-fourth attended classes using a combination of in-person and
online learning.35
The mode of learning for K–12 students differed significantly by race and ethnicity. While 27 per-
cent of all parents of children enrolled in public or private school said their youngest child
attended their classes completely in person, the children of Black, Hispanic, and Asian parents
were less likely to do so. Approximately 6 in 10 Black and Hispanic parents of children in school
reported that their youngest child’s classes were completely online.
Parents with low income, who were living in metro areas, or whose child was enrolled in public
school were also more likely to say their child’s classes were completely online.36 Just over half of
parents of children in public school said that classes were completely online, compared to less
than one-fourth of parents with children in private school.
35
Parents of K–12 children are respondents who lived with their own children under age 18 who were enrolled in a public
or private K–12 school.
36
Parents were asked about the type of school that all children attended, but the mode of education only for their
youngest child. Results by school type exclude parents who reported that they had children attending both public and
private schools, since it was not apparent which child had distance learning. Approximately 2 percent of parents had
children in both public and private school.
54 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Table 16. Mode of learning for K–12 children (by income, race/ethnicity, urban status, and school type)
Percent
Characteristic In person Online Combination
Family Income
Less than $25,000 22 55 23
$25,000–$49,999 24 54 21
$50,000–$99,999 29 47 23
$100,000 or more 30 43 27
Race/ethnicity
White 35 38 27
Black 12 61 26
Hispanic 22 60 17
Asian 14 62 24
Place of residence
Metro area 25 51 24
Non-metro area 40 31 28
School type1
Public school 24 51 25
Private school 59 24 16
Overall 27 48 24
Note: Among parents with a child enrolled in public or private school. Based on the youngest child enrolled in public or private school who
lives with their parents and their mode of learning at the time of the survey.
1
School type excludes parents with students enrolled in both public and private schools.
Many parents of children who were attending classes partially or completely online thought their
children were receiving a lower quality education than before the pandemic. A majority of parents
whose child’s classes were partially or completely online felt their children had access to their
teachers and adequate internet and technology, yet only 22 percent of parents felt their child was
learning as much as if attending classes in person (figure 27).37 In addition to academic chal-
lenges, fewer than 3 in 10 parents felt that their child remained as connected to students and
peers as they had been when attending school in person. The shift to online learning has also
affected the ability of parents to work (see box 3).
Disruptions to Enrollment in Higher Education
The pandemic and its economic repercussions appear to have affected adults’ pursuit of higher
education. Twelve percent of adults under age 40 without a bachelor’s degree said that they did
not enroll in fall 2020 after planning to do so before the start of the pandemic. This includes
37
Respondents to the SHED, which was administered online, could have been more likely to have adequate access to
internet and technology than the general population.
Education 55
Figure 27. Self-assessment of K–12 online learning
My child is learning just as
much as they would taking 22 19 59
classes in person
My child feels connected to
students and peers at school 29 23 47
My child has access
73 18 9
to teachers
My child has adequate access
to the internet and technology 82 12 6
to complete coursework online
Percent
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
Note: Among parents whose youngest child enrolled in school is taking at least some classes online. Key identifies
bars in order from left to right.
12 percent of those with some college, a tech- Table 17. Reasons for not enrolling in higher
education in fall 2020
nical degree, or an associate degree as well
Reason Percent
as 12 percent of those with a high school
Financial concerns 74
degree or less.38
Health or safety concerns 63
Childcare responsibilities 31
The most common reasons given by adults Caring for parents or other family members 20
under age 40 who chose not to enroll in an Unreliable technology 20
education program in 2020 after intending to Note: Among adults under age 40 who chose not to enroll in an
educational program due to the pandemic. Respondents could
do so were financial barriers (74 percent) and select multiple answers.
health or safety concerns (63 percent)
(table 17). These health and safety concerns
likely included concerns about contracting COVID-19. Additionally, 31 percent of those who opted
not to attend school reported childcare responsibilities as a reason, which may include those who
experienced disruptions to their childcare plans as a result of the pandemic.
Quality of Online Higher Education
While some postsecondary students chose to continue their studies from home, attending classes
completely online, others returned to campus in at least some capacity. Since the onset of the
38
Although many people said that they did not enroll after having planned to do so, others who were not originally planning
to enroll in school may have enrolled due to the less favorable labor market conditions. For evidence of this pattern in
past recessions, see Bridget Terry Long, “The Financial Crisis and College Enrollment: How Have Students and Their
Families Responded?” How the Financial Crisis and Great Recession Affected Higher Education, ed. Jeffrey R. Brown and
Caroline M. Hoxby (NBER and University of Chicago Press, 2014), 209–33, https://www.nber.org/system/files/
chapters/c12862/c12862.pdf.
56 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Box 3. Childcare, Learning, and Employment Disruptions
For many parents, family and childcare responsibilities increased due to school closures and disrup-
tions in childcare services. Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, 41 percent of
parents used childcare services outside their home.1 This includes more than 62 percent of parents
with a youngest child age 5 and under and 30 percent of parents with a youngest child ages 6
through 12.2
Since the onset of the pandemic, one-fourth of all parents (or 6 in 10 who used childcare services)
experienced disruptions to their childcare. Additionally, K–12 school closures have created challenges
for parents. Fifty-five percent of all parents (or nearly three-fourths of parents of children enrolled in
school) said that their child’s classes involved distance learning at the time of the survey (see the
“Education” section of this report).
Disruptions to childcare and in-person K–12 schooling contributed to many parents’ not working or
working less. Twenty-two percent of all parents were either not working (9 percent) or were working less
(13 percent) because of disruptions to childcare or in-person K–12 schooling. The 9 percent of parents
who were not working due to such disruptions translates into nearly 2 percentage points fewer adults
who were working overall.3
Before the pandemic, childcare responsibilities had already prevented many mothers from entering or
fully participating in the labor force.4 The pandemic created an acute need for childcare, and mothers
were more likely than fathers to forgo employment during the pandemic for childcare-related reasons.
Twenty-five percent of mothers said they were not working or were working less because of disruptions
to childcare or in-person K–12 schooling, compared with 18 percent of fathers. Moreover, mothers were
almost twice as likely as fathers not to be working because of these disruptions (11 percent versus
6 percent).
The ability to work in the face of childcare and K–12 schooling disruptions also varied among mothers
by race, marital status, and income (figure A). Black, Hispanic, and single mothers, as well as mothers
with low income, were more likely not to be working or to be working less due to the disruption. Thirty-
six percent of Black mothers and 30 percent of Hispanic mothers reported not working or working less
because of disruptions to childcare or in-person K–12 schooling. In addition, 33 percent of unmarried
mothers and nearly a third of mothers with family income less than $50,000 reported not working or
working less. These findings are consistent with existing evidence that reducing or offsetting childcare
costs has stronger employment effects among these demographic groups.5
(continued on next page)
1
Parental status is based on whether the respondents lived with their own children under age 18. Childcare services include private
daycare, private preschool, or childcare center; public preschool, Head Start, or Early Head Start; grandparents living outside the
household; and someone else living outside the household.
2
Age of child is based on age of household members, not necessarily the respondent’s own child.
3
By comparison, during the Great Recession the employment to population ratio declined by 4.6 percentage points between
November 2007 and December 2009. See Evan Cunningham, “Great Recession, Great Recovery? Trends from the Current
Population Survey,” Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 2018, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2018.10.
However, for some parents who were not working due to childcare disruptions, this may have been a contributing factor, rather than
the only factor in their work decision. Additionally, some parents not working due to childcare disruptions may not have been working
prior to the onset of COVID-19 so the disruptions hindered entry into the labor force rather than leading them to stop working.
4
Taryn W. Morrissey, “Child Care and Parent Labor Force Participation: A Review of the Research Literature,” Review of Economics of
the Household 15 (2017): 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-016-9331-3.
5
Morrissey, “Child Care and Parent Labor Force Participation.”
Education 57
Box 3. Childcare, Learning, and Employment Disruptions
—continued
Figure A. Reduced hours worked or not working due to childcare or school disruptions among
mothers (by race/ethnicity, marriage status, and family income)
Race/ethnicity
White 9 10 19
Black 16 20 36
Hispanic 13 17 30
Marital status
Single or living with a partner 17 16 33
Married 8 13 21
Family Income
Less than $50,000 17 15 32
$50,000 or more 6 13 19
Overall 11 14 25
Not working Working less Percent
Note: Among mothers. Parental status is based on whether the respondent lived with their own children under age 18. Asian adults
omitted due to sample size limitations. Key identifies bars in order from left to right.
pandemic, nearly 9 in 10 students in higher education took a class online. Part-time students
were less likely (83 percent) to have taken classes online.
As was the case for primary and secondary education, college students expressed concern about
the quality of online classes. Just 3 in 10 students taking classes online said online learning was
worth the cost, citing both academic and social experiences (figure 28).
Although a majority of online students reported having adequate access to the internet and tech-
nology to complete their online coursework, only 34 percent reported they were learning just as
much as they would have attending in-person classes. This may reflect technology limitations or
an inability to mimic hands-on learning online, such as lab experience. An even smaller 17 percent
of students taking online classes felt connected to students and peers at their school. Social dis-
tancing measures, missed milestones such as graduation, and lack of an in-person residential
experience may have contributed to feelings of social isolation and the dissatisfaction with the
cost of online learning.
58 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 28. Self-assessment of higher education
Online learning is worth the cost 30 31 40
I am learning just as much as I
34 23 43
would taking classes in person
I feel connected to students
and peers at my school 17 24 59
I have access to my teachers 67 21 12
I have adequate access to
the internet and technology 79 15 5
to complete coursework online
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Percent
Note: Among current students who have taken a class online since March. Key identifies bars in order from left to right.
Students’ self-assessments of the quality of online higher education varied by their parents’ edu-
cation. First-generation college students taking online classes were more likely to say that they
were learning as much as they would taking in-person classes. Thirty-eight percent of first-
generation college students taking classes online said that online learning was worth the cost,
compared to 23 percent of online students with at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree
(figure 29).39
Figure 29. Share who agree with statements about online classes (by parents’ education)
Online learning is 23
worth the cost 38
I am learning just as much as 30
I would taking classes in person 38
I feel connected to students 15
and peers at my school 17
64
I have access to my teachers
72
I have adequate access to the internet and 81
technology to complete coursework online 79
Percent
Not first-generation college student First-generation college student
Note: Among current students who have taken a class online since March. Key identifies bars in order from top
to bottom.
39
One potential explanation for the gaps in self-assessed quality of online learning is that the perceived quality of
in-person education was higher for students coming from families with higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
Education 59
Students enrolled at public institutions generally reported similar online learning experiences as
those at private not-for-profit institutions, although those enrolled at private not-for-profit institu-
tions were more likely to report having adequate access to the internet and technology to com-
plete coursework (87 percent, compared to 81 percent of all students taking online classes).40
Black and Hispanic online students were less likely to report adequate access to technology
(76 percent and 73 percent, respectively).
Overall Value of Higher Education
More than 7 in 10 adults had ever enrolled in an educational degree program beyond high school,
and 36 percent had received a bachelor’s degree. Economic well-being rises strongly with educa-
tion, although the effects differed across demographic groups. The pandemic also seems to have
particularly affected those without a high school degree—the group already least likely to be doing
well financially (see the “Overall Financial Well-Being in 2020” section of this report for details on
financial well-being by education).
Consistent with the higher rates of financial well-being among those who have more education,
over half of adults who went to college said that the lifetime financial benefits of their higher edu-
cation exceeded the financial costs. This compares to one in five who said that the costs are
higher. The rest saw the benefits as about the same as the costs. These self-assessments of the
value of education have changed little over the past five years.
The self-assessed value of higher education, while generally positive, depends on several aspects
of a person’s educational experience. Most importantly, those who completed their program and
received a degree were more likely to see net benefits than non-completers. For example, among
those who went to college but did not complete at least an associate degree, fewer than 3 in 10
said the benefits of their education exceeded the cost. This fraction jumps to almost half of those
with an associate degree and two-thirds of those with at least a bachelor’s degree (table 18).
The self-assessed value of higher education also differed by race and ethnicity. Among those who
completed only some college or a technical or associate degree, there were relatively small differ-
ences between White, Black, and Hispanic adults’ perceptions of whether the benefits of their edu-
cations exceed the costs. However, among those who complete at least a bachelor’s degree, a
larger gap emerged (figure 30). While 66 percent of all bachelor’s degree recipients felt that their
education was worth the cost, 57 percent of Black, 62 percent of Hispanic, and 69 percent of
White bachelor’s degree recipients felt this way. This suggests that self-perceptions of the value of
higher education are not equal across racial and ethnic groups.
40
The sample size of students currently enrolled at private for-profit institutions was too small to separately examine their
experiences with online classes.
60 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Table 18. Self assessment of higher education (by education)
Percent
Costs and benefits are
Education Benefits are greater Costs are greater
about the same
Some college or technical degree, not enrolled 26 43 27
Associate degree 48 35 17
Bachelor’s degree or more 66 17 16
Overall 51 28 20
Note: Among adults who attended college.
Figure 30. Benefits of education exceed costs (by education and race/ethnicity)
25
Some college or technical 27
degree, not enrolled
26
50
Associate degree 44
49
69
Bachelor's degree or more 57
62
Percent
White Black Hispanic
Note: Among adults who attended college. Asian adults omitted due to sample size limitations. Key identifies bars in
order from top to bottom.
An additional contributor to differences in how people viewed their education is the type of institu-
tion attended.41 Consistent with previous years of the survey, 69 percent of those with bachelor’s
degrees from public, and 65 percent with bachelor’s degrees from private not-for-profit, institutions
saw their educational benefits as greater than their costs (figure 31). However, a much smaller
40 percent of those with bachelor’s degrees from for-profit institutions felt their education was
worth the cost, which is down from 48 percent in 2019. One possible explanation for this decline
could be that those with a bachelor’s degree from for-profit institutions were more likely to experi-
ence a job loss in the 12 months prior (15 percent, compared to 11 percent of all adults).
41
Individuals do not self-report the type of institution in the survey. Instead, the institution type is assigned by matching
the name and location of the college reported by the individual with data from the Center on Postsecondary Research at
the Indiana University School of Education (https://cpr.indiana.edu/).
Education 61
Figure 31. Self-assessed value of higher education (by degree and institution type)
Associate degree
Public 51 34 14
Private not-for-profit 46 35 19
Private for-profit 37 31 32
Bachelor’s degree
or more
Public 69 16 14
Private not-for-profit 65 17 18
Private for-profit 40 21 38
Percent
Benefits are greater Costs and benefits are about the same Costs are greater
Note: Among adults who completed at least an associate or bachelor’s degree. Degree holders are asked specifically
about the value of their associate or bachelor’s degree, rather than their higher education as a whole. Key identifies
bars in order from left to right.
Look Back on Education Decisions
Another way to assess the value of education is to consider what people would have done differ-
ently if given the chance. Most people value the education they have, yet with the benefit of hind-
sight and life experience, it is also common to think that different educational decisions could
have been better.
Among those without a college degree, 71 percent would like to have completed more education,
and 12 percent would rather have completed less education in general or not have attended col-
lege (table 19). The strong desire for additional education was similarly true among those who felt
that the education they received did not pay off.
Table 19. Changes would now make to earlier education decisions (by education)
Percent
Some college or technical Bachelor’s degree
Change Associate degree
degree, not enrolled or more
Completed more education 71 65 36
Not attended college or less education 12 5 5
Chosen a different field of study 40 33 35
Attended a different school 33 25 23
Note: Among adults who attended college. Respondents could select multiple answers.
62 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 32. Changes would now make to earlier education decisions (by institution type)
53
Completed
38
more education
65
7
Not attended college
or less education 5
13
38
Chosen a different
field of study 33
39
22
Attended a
28
different school
46
Public Private not-for-profit Private for-profit Percent
Note: Among adults who attended college. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
Likewise, among those who completed an associate degree, the most common desired change
(65 percent) was to have completed more education, followed by choosing a different field of study
(33 percent). Five percent of those with an associate degree and 5 percent of those with at least
a bachelor’s degree reported that they would prefer to have had less education.
The reassessment of education decisions also varied by the type of institution attended. Forty-
six percent of those who attended a for-profit institution said they would have attended a different
school, versus 28 percent of those attending a private not-for-profit institution and 22 percent
attending a public institution (figure 32). This difference remains even after accounting for the
selectiveness of the institution, level of education completed, the parents’ level of education, and
demographic characteristics of the student.42
42
Selective institutions, as defined by the Carnegie Classification, are those whose first-year students’ test scores
are in the middle two-fifths of baccalaureate institutions; more selective institutions are in the top one-fifth of baccalau-
reate institutions. See also “Carnegie Classification of Institutes of Higher Education,” web page, http://
carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/. The remainder are referred to here as “less selective” institutions.
63
Student Loans
Many adults who went to college took on some debt for their education, and younger adults were
more likely to have taken out student loans or incurred other education-related debt. Although
repayment of this debt can be challenging, many student loan borrowers received reductions or
delays in payment due dates for student loan bills since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in
March 2020. Furthermore, a sizeable share were not required to make payments on their student
loans before the onset of the pandemic, often because they were still enrolled in school.
While recognizing that delays and forgiveness of student loan bills may reduce the share who have
missed payments, there was little change in the share of borrowers who were behind on their pay-
ments in 2020. Individuals who did not complete their degree or who attended a for-profit institu-
tion were more likely to struggle with repayment than those who completed a degree from a public
or not-for-profit institution. Additionally, those who had outstanding student loan debt at the time of
the survey reported lower levels of financial well-being across several dimensions.
Incidence and Types of Education Debt
Thirty percent of all adults—representing just over 4 in 10 people who went to college—said they
incurred at least some debt for their education. This includes 20 percent of college attendees who
still owed money and 20 percent who had already repaid their education debts. Adults under age
30 who attended college were more likely to have taken out loans than older adults, consistent
with the upward trend in educational borrowing over the past several decades (figure 33).43
The incidence of education debt varied by the type of educational institution. Among those who
attended public institutions, 38 percent either previously held debt or currently had debt at the
time of the survey, compared with 53 percent of those who attended either private not-for-profit or
private for-profit institutions.44 Among younger cohorts of students, those who attended private
for-profit institutions were also more likely to have taken out student loans than those who
attended either private not-for-profit or public institutions.
43
Student loan borrowing has declined since its peak in 2010–11 but remains substantially above the levels from the mid-
1990s (Sandy Baum, Jennifer Ma, Matea Pender, and CJ Libassi, Trends in Student Aid 2019 (New York: The College
Board, 2019), https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/trends-student-aid-2019-full-report.pdf).
44
Students who attend for-profit institutions account for a disproportionate share of education debt, including both count
and dollar amount of student loans. See Rajashri Chakrabarti, Michael Lovenheim, and Kevin Morris, “The Changing
Role of Community-College and For-Profit-College Borrowers in the Student Loan Market,” Federal Reserve Bank of New
York Liberty Street Economics (blog), September 8, 2016, http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2016/09/the-
changing-role-of-the-community-college-and-for-profit-college-borrowers-in-the-student-loan-mark.html, for a discussion of
trends in federal student loan borrowing by institution type.
64 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 33. Acquired debt for own education, including repaid (by age and education)
39
Some college or 41
technical degree 25
13
42
48
Associate degree 39
17
55
59
Bachelor’s degree 44
29
60
68
Graduate degree
55
38
Percent
18–29 30–44 45–59 60+
Note: Among adults who attended college. Key identifies bars in order from top or bottom.
Not all education debt is in the form of stu-
Table 20. Type of education debt
Percent dent loans. Ninety-five percent of those with
outstanding debt from their own education
Child’s or grand-
Debt type Own education
child’s education had student loans, but many borrowers had
Student loan 95 86 other forms of education debt as well
Credit card 21 14
(table 20). This includes 21 percent who bor-
Home equity loan 4 9
rowed with credit cards, 4 percent with a
Other loan 12 9
home equity line of credit, and 12 percent with
Note: Among adults with at least some debt outstanding for
their own education or a child’s or grandchild’s education. Some some other form. Collectively, 26 percent of
people had more than one type of debt.
borrowers had at least one form of education
debt besides student loans. The median
amount of education debt in 2020 among
those with any outstanding debt for their own education was between $20,000 and $24,999.45
Some people also took out education debt to assist family members with their education through
either a co-signed loan with the student or a loan taken out independently. Although this is less
common than borrowing for one’s own education, 4 percent of adults owed money for a spouse’s
or partner’s education, and 5 percent had debt that paid for a child’s or grandchild’s education.
Like debt outstanding for the borrower’s education, debt for a child’s or grandchild’s education can
be in forms other than a student loan.
45
Education debt levels and monthly payments are asked in ranges rather than exact dollar amounts.
Student Loans 65
Student Loan Payment Status
The pandemic dramatically altered repayment requirements for many student loans. Before the
onset of the pandemic, just under 3 in 10 adults with outstanding education debt for their own
education were not required to make payments. Traditionally, these deferments were for reasons
such as still being enrolled in school. However, provisions in the CARES Act and subsequent
executive orders in response to COVID-19 substantially expanded student loan payment relief.46
As a result of these provisions, 60 percent of borrowers with debt from their own education either
were not required to make payments before the pandemic or were receiving at least some student
loan payment relief at the time of the survey.
Among those with outstanding debt from their own education, 18 percent were behind on their pay-
ments. Those who did not complete a degree were the most likely to be behind. Thirty-one percent
of adults who had education loans outstanding and who had less than an associate degree
reported being behind. This compares to 22 percent of borrowers with an associate degree. The
delinquency rate was even lower among borrowers with a bachelor’s degree (9 percent) or
graduate degree (8 percent).
Borrowers with additional debt generally had higher levels of education. Among those with over
$15,000 of education debt, two-thirds had at least a bachelor’s degree and more than one-third
had a graduate degree. This compares to the one-third of those with smaller amounts of out-
standing debt who had at least a bachelor’s degree.
Likely because education levels, and associated earning power, are generally higher among those
with more debt, borrowers with the least debt often had somewhat more difficulty with repay-
ments. Twenty-one percent of borrowers with less than $15,000 of outstanding debt were behind
on their payments, compared with 17 percent of those with $15,000 of debt or more.
Although it is common to focus only on borrowers with outstanding debt, many people who bor-
rowed for their education had repaid their loans completely. Excluding these borrowers who have
paid off their debt could overstate difficulties with repayment. The remainder of this section there-
fore considers the repayment status of all borrowers, including those who had completely repaid
their loan.
46
Beginning on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act granted relief to student loan borrowers by temporarily pausing
payments—including principal and interest—on federally held student loans. This pause was scheduled to expire on
September 30, 2020, but an extension of the forbearance through December 31, 2020, was directed in a memorandum
signed by President Trump on August 8, 2020. On December 4, 2020, the Department of Education announced that it
would extend the relief provided by the presidential memorandum and the CARES Act until January 31, 2021. On
January 20, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to extend this relief to September 30, 2021 (see https://
studentaid.gov/announcements-events/coronavirus).
66 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 34. Payment status of loans for own education among borrowers under age 40 (by parents’
education)
Not first-generation
4 61 35
college students
First-generation 16 60 23
college students
Percent
Behind Current Paid off
Note: Among adults ages 18 to 39 who borrowed for their own education. Key identifies bars in order from left to right.
The share of adults who were behind on their payments is much lower when accounting for all bor-
rowers, including those who had completely repaid that debt. Among those who ever incurred debt
for their education, 9 percent were behind on their payments at the time of the survey, 42 percent
had outstanding debt and were current on their payments, and 49 percent had completely paid off
their loans.
Borrowers who were first-generation college students were more likely to be behind on their pay-
ments than those with a parent who completed college. Among borrowers under age 40, first-
generation college students were about three times as likely to be behind on their payments as
those with a parent who completed a bachelor’s degree (figure 34).
Difficulties with repayment also varied by race and ethnicity. Young Black and Hispanic borrowers
were disproportionately likely to be behind on their debt and were less likely to have completely
paid off their student loan debts (figure 35). Young Asian borrowers were less likely to be behind
on their payments and the most likely to have paid off their loans. These patterns partly reflect dif-
Figure 35. Payment status of loans for own education among borrowers under age 40 (by
race/ethnicity)
White 6 61 32
Black 23 66 11
Hispanic 20 56 23
Asian 4 44 52
Percent
Behind Current Paid off
Note: Among adults ages 18 to 39 who borrowed for their own education. Key identifies bars in order from left to right.
Student Loans 67
Figure 36. Payment status of loans for own education among borrowers under age 40 (by institution
type)
Public 10 61 29
Private not-for-profit 5 64 30
Private for-profit 26 54 19
Percent
Behind Current Paid off
Note: Among adults ages 18 to 39 who borrowed to pay for their own education. Key identifies bars in order from left
to right.
ferences in rates of degree completion, institutions attended, and wages for a given educational
credential (see the “Education” section of this report for additional discussions of these differ-
ences by race and ethnicity).
Repayment status also differed by the type of institution attended. More than one-fourth of bor-
rowers who attended for-profit institutions were behind on student loan payments, versus 10 per-
cent who attended public institutions and 5 percent who attended private not-for-profit institutions
(figure 36).
Greater difficulties with loan repayment among attendees of for-profit institutions may partly reflect
the lower returns on degrees from these institutions.47 Indeed, when accounting for race and eth-
nicity, first-generation status, and institution selectivity, the relationship between for-profit institu-
tion attendance and student loan default persists. This suggests that the high default rates for
attendees of for-profit institutions reflect characteristics of the schools and is not simply due to
the characteristics of their students.
Relation to Financial Well-Being
Adults carrying student loan debt report lower levels of financial well-being than do similar adults
who do not have outstanding debt. However, payment-relief measures in response to the
pandemic appear to have bolstered the financial well-being of those who received relief from these
payments.
47
See David J. Deming, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz, “The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters
or Agile Predators?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 1 (Winter 2012): 139–64, for a discussion of the rates of
return by education sector.
68 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Among adults with the same level of educa-
Table 21. Well-being measures (by education
and receipt of student loan relief) tion, those who currently held student loan
Characteristic Percent
debt were less likely to say they are doing
Some college/technical or associate degree okay financially. This is consistent with pat-
Never had education debt 74 terns seen in earlier years. For example, while
Previously had debt, now repaid 65 80 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients
Currently has debt 52 ages 18 to 39 with outstanding education
Currently receiving student loan debt relief 54
debt were at least doing okay financially, this
Not currently receiving student loan debt relief 51
is less than the 92 percent of similarly edu-
Bachelor’s degree or more
Never had education debt 93
cated adults in this age range who previously
Previously had debt, now repaid 92 had debt and the 93 percent of those who
Currently has debt 80 never had debt who said that they were at
Currently receiving student loan debt relief 82 least doing okay (table 21).
Not currently receiving student loan debt relief 77
Note: Among adults ages 18 to 39 who completed at least Young adult borrowers who were receiving stu-
some college.
dent loan relief from the CARES Act and sub-
sequent executive orders appeared to be
doing better off financially than borrowers who
were not. Among adults with at least a bachelor’s degree who had student loans, 82 percent of
those currently receiving payment reductions or delays in payments were doing at least okay finan-
cially. This contrasts with 77 percent of those with student loans who were not receiving payment
relief at the time of the survey who were doing at least okay financially.
69
Retirement
Most retirees reported their financial situation at the time of the survey was similar to 12 months
earlier. However, a sizable share of recent retirees said COVID-related factors affected the timing
of their retirement decision. Differences in retirement preparedness among non-retirees also
remained largely the same. Non-retirees who experienced a layoff were less likely to have retire-
ment savings but more likely to have borrowed from, or cashed out, these accounts in the
prior year.
Current Retirees
Retirees represent a sizeable portion of the adult population. Twenty-seven percent of adults in
2020 considered themselves to be retired, even though some were still working in some
capacity.48 Thirteen percent of retirees had done some work for pay or profit in the prior month.
Consequently, 4 percent of all adults considered themselves retired and were still working.
Retirees with more education were more likely to work in retirement.
In deciding when to retire, most retirees indicated that their preferences played a role, but life
events contributed to the timing of retirement for a substantial share (figure 37). Forty-eight per-
cent of retirees said a desire to do other things or to spend time with family was important for
their decision to retire, and 45 percent said they retired because they reached a normal retirement
age. Nonetheless, 29 percent said that a health problem was a factor in their decision to retire,
and 15 percent said they retired to care for family members. Just over 1 in 10 said they were
forced to retire or that work was not available. Collectively, health problems, caring for family, and
lack of work contributed to the timing of retirement for 45 percent of retirees.
A sizeable share of recent retirees indicated that COVID-19 was a factor in their retirement deci-
sion. Twenty-nine percent of adults who retired in the past year said factors related to COVID-19
contributed to when they retired. Compared to other retirees, recent retirees whose retirement
decision was related to COVID-19 were more likely to say they retired because they were forced to
do so or work was not available, because they did not like their work, or to care for family mem-
bers. They were less likely to say they retired because they reached a normal retirement age. Rea-
sons for retirement can have longer-run implications. Economic well-being among retirees can vary
48
In this report, descriptions of current retirees include everyone who reported being retired, including those who also
reported that they are working.
70 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 37. Reasons for the timing of retirement
Voluntary
Wanted to do other things 48
Reached normal retirement age 45
Didn't like the work 14
Unanticipated or involuntary
Health problem 29
Care for family members 15
Forced to retire or lack of work 11
Percent
Note: Among retirees. Respondents could select multiple answers.
considerably by whether the reasons for retirement appeared to be voluntary and determined by
preferences or were unanticipated and driven by life events.49
Social Security was the most common source
Table 22. Sources of income in the prior 12
months among retirees (by age) of income in retirement in 2020, but 81 per-
Percent
cent of retirees had one or more sources of
Source
Retirees age 65
All retirees private income.50 This included 59 percent
and older
of retirees with income from a pension;
Social Security 93 79
Pension 68 59
46 percent with interest, dividends, or rental
Interest, dividends, or income; and 32 percent with labor income
rental income 50 46 (table 22).51 Seventy-nine percent of retirees
Wages, salaries, or
self-employment 25 32
received income from Social Security in the
Cash transfers other than prior 12 months, including 93 percent of
Social Security 7 12 retirees age 65 or older.
Note: Among retirees. Respondents could select multiple
answers. Sources of income include the income of a spouse
or partner. Looking back over the year, most retirees
reported their financial situation at the time of
the survey was similar to 12 months earlier,
and they were more likely to report being in a similar financial situation than were non-retirees
(figure 38). Sixty-one percent of retirees said they (and their family) were in about the same
49
See box 4 of the Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019, Featuring Supplemental Data from
April 2020.
50
In addition to the income sources discussed here, most retirees also qualified for Economic Impact Payments author-
ized by the CARES Act and some qualified for other benefits.
51
The type of pension was not specified, so pension income may include income from defined benefit plans, which pay a
fixed monthly amount and defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans.
Retirement 71
Figure 38. Financial situation compared to 12 months ago (by retirement status)
18
Retirees 61
21
26
Non-retirees 47
26
Percent
Worse off About the same Better off
Note: Among all adults. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
financial position as they were 12 months earlier, compared with 47 percent of non-retirees. Relat-
edly, almost three-fourths of retirees had total monthly income that was about the same as
12 months prior, and two-thirds had total monthly spending that was about the same.
Retirement Savings among Non-Retirees
Although three-fourths of non-retired adults had at least some retirement savings, about one-fourth
did not have any (figure 39). This share was nearly unchanged since 2019. Among those with
retirement savings, these savings were most frequently in defined contribution plans, such as a
401(k) or 403(b), with 54 percent of non-retired adults having money in such a plan. These
accounts were more than twice as common as traditional defined benefit plans such as pensions,
Figure 39. Forms of retirement savings among non-retirees
Defined contribution 54
pension
Savings not in
48
retirement accounts
IRA 33
Defined benefit pension 21
Other retirement savings 12
Business or real estate 9
None 26
Percent
Note: Among non-retirees. Respondents could select multiple answers.
72 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
which 21 percent of non-retirees held. Forty-eight percent of non-retirees had retirement savings
outside of formal retirement accounts.
While most non-retired adults had some type of retirement savings, only 36 percent of non-retirees
thought their retirement saving was on track. Because retirement saving strategies differ by cir-
cumstances and age, survey respondents assessed whether or not they felt that they are on track,
but they defined that for themselves. Thirty-six percent of non-retired adults thought their retire-
ment saving was on track, while 45 percent said it was not and the rest were not sure.
Retirement savings and perceived prepared-
Table 23. Retirement saving and self-assessed
preparedness (by age and race/ethnicity) ness differed across demographic groups.
Percent
Younger adults were both less likely to have
Any Retirement retirement savings and to view their savings
Characteristic retirement savings
savings on track as on track than older adults. Compared to all
Age non-retirees, Black and Hispanic non-retirees
18–29 62 28 were less likely to have retirement savings
30–44 71 34 and to view their retirement savings as on
45–59 83 40
track, while White and Asian non-retirees were
60+ 87 48
more likely to have such savings and say they
Race/ethnicity
were on track (table 23).
White 80 42
Black 63 23
Hispanic 58 22 The lower rates of savings among Black and
Asian 85 47 Hispanic non-retirees partly reflects the fact
Overall 73 36 that Black and Hispanic adults are, on
Note: Among non-retirees. average, younger than the non-retired popula-
tion overall. Even within age cohorts, however,
significant differences remained in retirement
savings by race and ethnicity, consistent with
patterns seen in previous years.
Occasionally, retirement savings can also act as a source of emergency funds for non-retirees who
face economic hardships. Provisions in the CARES Act supported this by allowing favorable tax
treatment of COVID-related distributions from retirement accounts.52 However, many non-retirees
who experienced layoffs did not have self-directed retirement savings (figure 40). Forty-two percent
of non-retirees who experienced a layoff in the past year did not have self-directed retirement sav-
ings at the time of the survey, compared to 26 percent of non-retirees who did not experience a
52
“Coronavirus-Related Relief for Retirement Plans and IRAs Questions and Answers,” Internal Revenue Service, last
updated September 19, 2020, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/coronavirus-related-relief-for-retirement-plans-and-iras-
questions-and-answers.
Retirement 73
Figure 40. Amount of self-directed retirement savings (by layoff in prior 12 months)
42
Laid off 30
21
26
Not laid off 28
36
None Less than $50,000 $50,000+ Percent
Note: Among non-retirees. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
layoff.53 Hence, the concentration of employment losses among workers who were less likely to
have self-directed retirement savings limited the number of laid off workers who could tap retire-
ment accounts in response to these policy changes.
Despite being less likely to have retirement savings, non-retirees experiencing a layoff were more
likely to have borrowed from or cashed out retirement accounts. Overall, 9 percent of non-retired
adults tapped their retirement savings—a slight uptick from 2019. Yet, a higher 14 percent of non-
retired adults who had experienced a layoff borrowed or cashed out funds from their retire-
ment savings.
Non-retirees with smaller account balances were also more likely to have borrowed from, or
cashed out, funds from their retirement accounts in the past year (figure 41). Fifteen percent of
those with account balances under $50,000 borrowed from, or cashed out, these accounts, com-
pared with 9 percent of those with account values of $50,000 or more. While tapping retirement
funds could result in smaller account balances, adults with lower income (and likely with lower
account balances) were more likely to experience shocks that could prompt them to tap retirement
reserves early.54
53
Some people who were laid off may have cashed out all of their retirement savings. Among the 2020 SHED respondents
who also took the 2019 survey, 40 percent of those who were not retired in either year who experienced a layoff in 2020
did not have self-directed retirement savings in 2020. This is up from 36 percent of the same group who did not have
self-directed retirement savings at the time of the 2019 survey. In contrast, among the group of non-retirees who took
both surveys but did not experience a layoff, the share who had no self-directed retirement savings was similar year over
year (23 percent in 2020 and 24 percent in 2019).
54
For more on early withdrawals and the relationship with economic shocks and income, see Robert Argento,
Victoria L. Bryant, and John Sabelhaus, “Early Withdrawals from Retirement Accounts during the Great Recession,”
Contemporary Economic Policy 33, no. 1 (March 2013), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
254969212_Early_Withdrawals_from_Retirement_Accounts_during_the_Great_Recession.
74 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Figure 41. Borrowed from or cashed out retirement savings accounts in the prior 12 months (by amount
of self-directed retirement savings)
None 5
Less than $50,000 15
$50,000+ 9
Percent
Note: Among non-retirees.
Comfort Managing Savings and Financial Literacy
Self-directed retirement accounts frequently have complex rules on withdrawals and rely on indi-
viduals to have the skills and knowledge required to manage their own investments. Non-retirees
with self-directed retirement savings varied in their comfort with making investment decisions for
their accounts. More than 6 in 10 non-retirees with self-directed retirement savings expressed low
levels of comfort in making investment decisions with their accounts.
Among those non-retirees with self-directed savings, a minority of women of all education levels,
and men with less education, were comfortable managing their retirement investments (figure 42).
While 60 percent of men with at least a bachelor’s degree were mostly or very comfortable making
investment decisions, 36 percent of men with a high school degree or less expressed that level of
comfort. Women with any level of education were less comfortable making investment decisions
than men. Thirty-one percent of women with at least a bachelor’s degree were comfortable man-
aging their investments, and the share was somewhat lower for women with less education.
Figure 42. Mostly or very comfortable investing self-directed retirement savings (by gender and
education)
36
Men 43
60
25
Women 27
31
Percent
High school degree or less Some college/technical or associate degree Bachelor’s degree or more
Note: Among non-retirees with self-directed retirement savings. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
Retirement 75
Figure 43. Financial literacy questions
Interest 73 17 10
Inflation 61 28 11
Diversification 42 54 4
Percent
Correct Don’t know Incorrect
Note: Among the one-half of respondents who were asked the questions including “Don’t know” as an answer. Key iden-
tifies bars in order from left to right.
To also get some sense of individuals’ financial knowledge, respondents were asked three
questions—on interest, inflation, and risk diversification, respectively—that are commonly used as
measures of financial literacy (figure 43):55
1. Interest: Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2 percent per
year. After five years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the
money to grow? (Correct answer: More than $102)
2. Inflation: Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account was 1 percent per year and
inflation was 2 percent per year. After one year, how much would you be able to buy with the
money in this account? (Correct answer: Less than today)
3. Diversification: Do you think the following statement is true or false? “Buying a single compa-
ny’s stock usually provides a safer return than a stock mutual fund.” (Correct answer: False)
Higher shares of adults provided correct answers to questions about interest and inflation than to
the question on risk diversification. The average number of correct answers was 1.8 out of 3, and
33 percent of adults got all three correct.
Self-assessed comfort in managing investments was correlated with these measures of financial
literacy. Among those with self-directed retirement accounts, those who expressed comfort with
managing their investments answered a larger share of questions (75 percent) correctly, on
average, than those who expressed little or no comfort (60 percent) (table 24). Notably, the share
of incorrect answers did not vary much with investment comfort. Instead, the number of “don’t
55
These questions were developed by Annamaria Lusardi and Olivia Mitchell (see “Financial Literacy around the World: An
Overview,” Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 10, no. 4 (2011): 497–508) and have been widely used to study
financial literacy. In the 2020 SHED, half of the respondents received the questions and answer choices developed by
Lusardi and Mitchell, and the results reported here reflect their responses. The other half of the respondents received
the same questions without the “Don’t know” answer option. Results from the group who received this alternative for-
mulation are included in appendix B of the appendixes to this report.
76 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Table 24. Financial literacy (by retirement savings and comfort investing)
Percent
Presence of retirement savings and level of investing comfort Correct Incorrect Don’t know/Refused
Has self-directed retirement savings 66 7 27
Mostly or very comfortable investing 75 8 17
Not or slightly comfortable investing 60 7 33
No self-directed retirement savings 35 11 54
Retired 62 9 29
Overall 59 8 33
Note: Among the one-half of respondents who were asked the questions including “Don’t know” as an answer choice.
know” responses fell as investment comfort rose. Overall, however, non-retirees with such
accounts still answered more financial literacy questions correctly, on average, than either non-
retirees who did not have such accounts or people who were already retired.
Gender differences in financial literacy mirrored differences in being comfortable with the invest-
ment decisions. Women, on average, answered a lower share of financial literacy questions cor-
rectly (52 percent) than men (65 percent). Women were also more likely to select “don’t know” or
to skip the question (39 percent) than men (27 percent). As a result, women, on average, had
lower levels of financial literacy by this measure. Some evidence suggests that one driver of this
gender difference may relate to different levels of experience with financial decisions.56
56
Some of the gender gap in financial literacy may relate to specialization in financial tasks within a household, with
women being less likely to handle the finances. Joanne Hsu finds that women’s financial literacy increases after the
death of a spouse (see “Aging and Strategic Learning: The Impact of Spousal Incentives on Financial Literacy,” Journal of
Human Resources 51, no. 4 (Fall 2016): 1036–67).
77
Description of the Survey
The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking was fielded from November 13 through
November 30, 2020. This was the eighth year of the survey, conducted annually in the fourth
quarter of each year since 2013.57 Staff of the Federal Reserve Board wrote the survey questions
in consultation with other Federal Reserve System staff, outside academics, and professional
survey experts.
Ipsos, a private consumer research firm, administered the survey using its KnowledgePanel, a
nationally representative probability-based online panel. Since 2009, Ipsos has selected respon-
dents for KnowledgePanel based on address-based sampling (ABS). SHED respondents were then
selected from this panel.
Survey Participation
Participation in the 2020 SHED depended on several separate decisions made by respondents.
First, they agreed to participate in Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. According to Ipsos, 10.5 percent of
individuals contacted to join KnowledgePanel agreed to join (study-specific recruitment rate). Next,
they completed an initial demographic profile survey. Among those who agreed to join the panel,
61.8 percent completed the initial profile survey and became a panel member (study-specific pro-
file rate). Finally, selected panel members agreed to complete the 2020 SHED.
Of the 18,077 panel members contacted to take the 2020 SHED, 11,713 participated and com-
pleted the survey, yielding a final-stage completion rate of 64.8 percent.58 Taking all the stages of
recruitment together, the cumulative response rate was 4.2 percent. After removing a small
number of respondents due to high refusal rates or completing the survey too quickly, the final
sample used in the report included 11,648 respondents.59
57
Data and reports of survey findings from all past years are available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/
consumerscommunities/shed.htm.
58
Three hundred ninety-four respondents were not included in the analysis because they started, but did not complete, the
survey (known as break-offs). The study break-off rate for the SHED was 3.3 percent.
59
Of the 11,713 respondents who completed the survey, 65 were excluded from the analysis in this report due to either
leaving responses to a large number of questions missing, completing the survey too quickly, or both.
78 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Targeted Outreach and Incentives
To increase survey participation and completion among hard-to-reach demographic groups, Board
staff and Ipsos utilized a targeted communication plan with monetary incentives. The target
groups—young adults ages 18 to 29, adults with less than a high school degree, adults with
household income under $40,000 who are under age 60, and those who are a race or ethnicity
other than White, non-Hispanic—received additional email reminders and text messages during
the field period, as well as additional monetary incentives.
All survey respondents not in a target group received a $5 incentive payment after survey comple-
tion. Respondents in the target groups received a $15 incentive. These targeted individuals also
received follow-up emails during the field period to encourage completion. Additionally, the incen-
tives offered to some targeted individuals increased to $25 during the field period to increase the
incentive for completion.60
The final-stage completion rate in 2020 was slightly higher than 2019, due to an increase in the
response rate among the non-targeted group. However, the final-stage completion for the target
group was unchanged from 2019.
Survey Questionnaire
The 2020 survey took respondents 20 minutes (median time) to complete.
One priority for the 2020 survey was to understand how individuals, families, and communities—
particularly those with low- to moderate-income—have been faring since the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic. The questions were intended to complement and augment the base of knowledge from
other data sources, including the Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. In addition, some ques-
tions from other surveys were included to allow direct comparisons across datasets.61 The full
survey questionnaire can be found in appendix A of the appendixes to this report.
60
All targeted adults received an email encouraging completion between three and six days into the field period. Three
days before closing the survey, targeted adults received an email reminder mentioning a $25 incentive for completing
the survey, and non-targeted adults received an email reminder mentioning a $5 incentive. Of the 5,804 respondents in
a targeted group, 134 received the higher $25 incentive payment and the rest received the $15 incentive payment.
61
For a comparison of results to select overlapping questions from the SHED and Census Bureau surveys, see Jeff Larri-
more, Maximilian Schmeiser, and Sebastian Devlin-Foltz, “Should You Trust Things You Hear Online? Comparing SHED
and Census Bureau Survey Results,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series Notes (Washington: Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, October 15, 2015).
Description of the Survey 79
Survey Mode
While the sample was drawn using probability-based sampling methods, the SHED was adminis-
tered to respondents entirely online. Online interviews are less costly than telephone or in-person
interviews and can be an effective way to interview a representative population.62 Ipsos’ online
panel offers some additional benefits. Their panel allows the same respondents to be
re-interviewed in subsequent surveys with relative ease, as they can be easily contacted for sev-
eral years.
Furthermore, internet panel surveys have numerous existing data points on respondents from pre-
viously administered surveys, including detailed demographic and economic information. This
allows for the inclusion of additional information on respondents without increasing respondent
burden. The respondent burdens are further reduced by automatically skipping irrelevant questions
based on responses to previous answers.
The “digital divide” and other differences in internet usage could bias participation in online sur-
veys, so recruited panel members who did not have a computer or internet access were provided
with a laptop and access to the internet to complete the surveys. Even so, individuals who com-
plete an online survey may have greater comfort or familiarity with the internet and technology
than the overall adult population, which has the potential to introduce bias in the characteristics of
who responds.
Sampling and Weighting
The SHED sample was designed to be representative of adults age 18 and older living in the
United States.
The Ipsos methodology for selecting a general population sample from KnowledgePanel ensured
that the resulting sample behaved as an equal probability of selection method (EPSEM) sample.
This methodology started by weighting the entire KnowledgePanel to the benchmarks in the latest
March supplement of the Current Population Survey along several geo-demographic dimensions.
This way, the weighted distribution of the KnowledgePanel matched that of U.S. adults. The geo-
demographic dimensions used for weighting the entire KnowledgePanel included gender, age, race,
ethnicity, education, census region, household income, homeownership status, and metropolitan
area status.
62
David S. Yeager et al., “Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Prob-
ability and Non-Probability Samples,” Public Opinion Quarterly 75, no. 4 (2011): 709–47.
80 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2020
Using the above weights as the measure of size (MOS) for each panel member, in the next step a
probability proportional to size (PPS) procedure was used to select study specific samples. This
methodology was designed to produce a sample with weights close to one, thereby reducing the
reliance on post-stratification weights for obtaining a representative sample.
After the survey collection was complete, statisticians at Ipsos adjusted weights in a post-
stratification process that corrected for any survey non-response as well as any non-coverage or
under- and over-sampling in the study design. The following variables were used for the adjustment
of weights for this study: age, gender, race, ethnicity, census region, residence in a metropolitan
area, education, and household income. Demographic and geographic distributions for the non-
institutionalized, civilian population age 18 and older from the March Current Population Survey
were the benchmarks in this adjustment. Household income benchmarks were obtained from the
2019 American Community Survey (ACS).63
One feature of the SHED is that a subset of respondents also participated in prior waves of the
survey. In 2020, about one-third of respondents had participated in the fall 2019 survey. Results
using this repeated sample are shown in box 1 and utilize separate weights from the full sample.
These weights use a similar procedure as described above to ensure estimates based on the
repeated sample are representative of the U.S. population.
Although weights allow the sample population to match the U.S. population (excluding those in the
military or in institutions, such as prisons or nursing homes) based on observable characteristics,
similar to all survey methods, it remains possible that non-coverage, non-response, or occasional
disparities among recruited panel members result in differences between the sample population
and the U.S. population. For example, address-based sampling likely misses homeless popula-
tions, and non-English speakers may not participate in surveys conducted in English.64
Despite an effort to select the 2020 SHED sample such that the unweighted distribution of the
sample more closely mirrored that of the U.S. adult population, the results indicate that weights
remain necessary to accurately reflect the composition of the U.S. population. Consequently, all
results presented in this report utilize the post-stratification weights produced by Ipsos for use
with the survey.
63
The ACS was used for the income benchmark because survey non-response in the 2020 March Supplement to the Cur-
rent Population Survey (CPS ASEC) increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for households with lower
income. See Jonathan Rothbaum and Adam Bee, “Coronavirus Infects Surveys, Too: Survey Nonresponse Bias and the
Coronavirus Pandemic,” SEHSD Working Paper Number 2020-10 (Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau, March 30, 2021),
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2020/demo/sehsd-wp2020-10.pdf.
64
For example, while the survey was weighted to match the race and ethnicity of the entire U.S. adult population, there is
evidence that the Hispanic population in the survey were somewhat more likely to speak English at home than the
overall Hispanic population in the United States. According to the SHED, 64 percent of Hispanic adults speak Spanish at
home versus 74 percent according to the 2019 American Community Survey. See table B16006 at https://
data.census.gov. See the Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017 for a comparison of results to
select questions administered in Spanish and English.
81
Acknowledgments
This survey and report were prepared by the Consumer and Community Research Section of the
Federal Reserve Board’s Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (DCCA).
DCCA directs consumer- and community-related functions performed by the Board, including con-
ducting research on financial services policies and practices and their implications for consumer
financial stability, community development, and neighborhood stabilization.
DCCA staff members Kenneth Brevoort, Sara Canilang, Kayla Jones, Jeff Larrimore, Alicia Lloro,
Ellen Merry, Anna Tranfaglia, Erin Troland, and Mike Zabek prepared this report. Federal Reserve
staff members Aditya Aladangady, Eric Belsky, Anna Alvarez Boyd, Andrea Brachtesende, Tenisha
Brown, David Buchholz, David Cho, Laura Feiveson, Paul Lengermann, Madelyn Marchessault,
Raven Molloy, Kirsten Noland, Andrew Paciorek, Thomas Popeck Spiller, Kirk Schwarzbach, and
Susan Stawick provided valuable comments on the survey and report. The authors would like to
thank Bob Torongo, Poom Nukulkij, Mansour Fahimi, Frances Barlas, and Alyssa Marciniak for their
assistance fielding the survey.
If you have questions about the survey or this report, please email SHED@frb.gov.
Find other Federal Reserve Board publications (www.federalreserve.gov/publications/default.htm) or order
those offered in print (www.federalreserve.gov/files/orderform.pdf) on our website. Also visit the site for more
information about the Board and to learn how to stay connected with us on social media.
www.federalreserve.gov
0521
File and source
- File
- fed-shed-2020.pdf
- Size
- 2,982,985 bytes
- SHA-256
- fd0354228ad893d25faa4b9e8dbbf84d8d4c4159f85c534efede648a731b1f7a
- Our copy
- fed-shed-2020.pdf
- Original
- www.federalreserve.gov