Office of 

Inspector General 

Performance Management and 

Internal Control Program 

05-02

Veronica M. McCain 

Auditor-in-Charge 

 July 1, 2005 
 

 

 

 

Farm Credit Administration	 Office of Inspector General

1501 Farm Credit Drive 

McLean, Virginia 22102-5090 

July 1, 2005 

The Honorable Nancy C. Pellett 

Chairman of the Board and 

Chief Executive Officer 

Farm Credit Administration 

1501 Farm Credit Drive 

McLean, Virginia 22102-5090 

Dear Ms. Pellett: 

The Office of the Inspector General completed an audit of the Farm Credit Administration 

performance measure and internal management control programs. There were two audit 

objectives. The first objective was to find out whether the Agency is adequately verifying and 

validating performance measure accomplishments presented in the Performance and 

Accountability Report. The second objective was to evaluate the adequacy of the supporting 

documentation for the Agency’s internal management control program review assessments. 

We found the Agency is committed to developing a comprehensive system for reporting 

performance results and assessing internal control. Processes are in place and are followed. 

However, some improvements are needed to ensure performance results accurately reflect 

accomplishments. In addition, the Agency’s internal management control program could be 

strengthened to be a more systematic integration of internal control review efforts, approached 

and written in a more standardized format. On page 6 though 9, we discuss a significant 

opportunity to reshape FCA’s internal control program. Information on a reputable framework 

and model is included. 

We conducted the audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the 

Comptroller General for audits of Federal organizations, programs, activities, and functions. We 

conducted fieldwork from February through May 2005. We provided a draft report to 

management on June 6, 2005. We conducted an exit conference and discussed the draft report 

with the Office of Chief Information Officer and the Office of Policy and Analysis, now known as 

Office of Regulatory Policy, on June 8, 2005. 

We would like to highlight the cooperative and collaborative efforts of two offices. Before 

issuance of the final report, the Office of Chief Information Officer took action on a finding 

discussed in this report. This prompt recognition and attention to the finding alleviated the need 

to publish the recommendation for improvement and eliminated the need to initiate and track the 

recommendation in the audit follow-up system. 
The Office of Policy and Analysis agreed to take action concerning an OIG finding and has 

proposed an action plan to address the audit finding explained within this report. We commend 

these offices for being so responsive to OIG findings and recommendations. This immediate 

willingness to focus on the accuracy of the Performance and Accountability Report is 

demonstrative of our ongoing partnership to improve the FCA. 

If you have any questions about this audit, I would be pleased to meet with you as soon as 

possible. 

Respectfully, 

Elizabeth M. Dean 

Acting Inspector General 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Why Did the Office of 

Inspector General 

do the Audit? 

Decision makers need 

evaluative information 

about how programs 

are working, both to 

manage programs 

effectively and to help 

decide how to allocate 

resources. 

This report discusses 

the importance of 

accurate performance 

measure results and 

the need for an 

effective internal 

control program. 

The report specifically 

identifies areas that 

may need improving to 

ensure performance 

results are clearly 

reflected in the 

Agency’s Performance 

and Accountability 

Report. 

In addition, the report 

addresses an 

innovative approach 

the Agency can use to 

reshape its internal 

control program in a 

more integrated effort. 

The Inspector General 

Office strives to be an 

advocate in providing 

the Agency with tools 

that are helpful in 

managing programs 

more effectively and 

efficiently. 

Objective. The objective of our review was to determine whether the 

Agency is adequately verifying and validating performance measure 

accomplishments presented in the Farm Credit Administration 

Performance and Accountability Report. We also evaluated the 

adequacy of the supporting documentation for the Agency’s internal 

control program review assessments. 

Audit Results. Our review found that the Farm Credit Administration 

is committed to developing a comprehensive system for reporting 

performance results and assessing internal control. However, some 

improvements are needed to ensure performance results accurately 

reflect accomplishments. In addition, the Agency’s internal 

management control program could be enhanced to be a more 

systematic integration of internal control review efforts, approached and 

written in a more standardized format. 

Performance and Accountability Report. For the FY 2004 

Performance and Accountability Report we verified the accuracy of 

information reported for 14 performance measures. Documentation 

supported the reported performance results in 12 of the 14 

performance measures. For 2 performance measures, we question 

whether results, as reported, accurately reflect program outcomes. 

We found the process used by the Office of Policy and Analysis for 

calculating the amount of regulatory initiatives using supplemental 

approaches is at times driven by Board actions that are more 

ministerial or administrative and should, therefore, not be included in 

the count. In addition, the interpretation of what constitutes a 

supplemental approach may be misguided. As a result, the number of 

supplemental approaches in the Performance and Accountability 

Report may be overstated. 

For the Office of Chief Information Officer, we found when determining 

the number of available network minutes in each quarter, schedule 

maintenance downtime is subtracted out, making the network 

availability time less and the percentage for network service availability 

possibly higher. Our interpretation is that “network service availability” 

should state the percentage of time the network is available at all times 

and not exclude routine maintenance down time. If routine 

maintenance downtime is excluded then it should be footnoted in the 

Performance and Accountability Report for a clear understanding on 

how the availability of information technology is calculated. 

Prior to issuance of the final report, the Office of Chief Information 

Officer took action to carry out draft report recommendations to 

improve performance result measurements on network service 

availability. We commend the Office of Chief Information Officer for 
 

 

taking prompt action to ensure the accuracy of the data reported in the 

Performance and Accountability Report. 

Internal Controls. We reviewed the internal control assessments 

performed in FY 2004 for the four offices: 1) Office of Examination, 2) 

Office of Policy and Analysis, 3) Office of General Counsel, and 4) 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. Overall, we found the Agency 

has established a sound process to assess and report on internal 

controls. However, the process could be improved through a more 

systematic integration of internal control review efforts. The Committee 

of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission provides an 

excellent framework that can help the Agency integrate its internal 

control program. The Internal Control-Integrated Framework has been 

used by thousands of businesses to better control their activities in 

moving toward achieving established objectives. The framework 

shows a direct relationship between the objectives, which are what the 

Agency strives to achieve and the Agency risk management 

components, which represent what is needed to achieve them. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 1
 

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................... 2 

FINDINGS AND RECOOMENDTATIONS ............................................................................... 2 

Performance Measure Reporting .................................................................................. 3

 Internal Controls............................................................................................................ 5
 

APPENDIX................................................................................................................................ 9 

List of Acronyms 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

Farmer Mac Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 

FCA Farm Credit Administration 

FCS Farm Credit System 

FIRS Financial Institution Ratings System 

FMFIA Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act 

FY Fiscal Year 

GPRA Government Performance Results Act 

OCIO Office of Chief Information Officer 

OE Office of Examination 

OGC Office of General Counsel 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPA Office of Policy and Analysis 
 

BACKGROUND 

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) is an independent Federal agency responsible 

for regulating and examining the agriculture government-sponsored enterprises 

serving rural America, which are the Farm Credit System (FCS) and the Federal 

Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). 

The proper stewardship of resources is a fundamental responsibility of FCA office 

directors and staff. Employees must ensure FCA’s resources are used efficiently 

and effectively to achieve intended program results. In addition, resources must be 

consistent with the Agency’s mission, in compliance with laws and regulations, and 

with minimal potential for waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Effective performance 

measures and a valid internal management control program helps the Agency 

achieve desired program results and safeguards the integrity of various FCA 

programs. 

Performance Measures 

The Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) is the primary framework which 

Federal agencies use to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report on the 

degree to which goals are met. In December 2003, the FCA Board adopted three 

strategic goals for fiscal years 2004-2009: 

1. Ensure the FCS and Farmer Mac fulfill their public missions for agriculture 

and rural areas. 

2. Evaluate risk and provide timely and proactive oversight to ensure the safety 

and soundness of Farm Credit System and Farmer Mac. 

3. Implement the President’s Management Agenda. 

These goals have 29 associated performance measures and “targets” aimed at 

determining the degree of success in accomplishing the Agency’s performance 

measures. The accomplishment is published annually in the Performance and 

Accountability Report. Performance results are compiled by each office submitting 

performance information to the Executive Director for Planning and Projects. The 

Director reviews the information for reasonableness and combines the performance 

report submissions from each office into a single performance report for the 

Chairman. FCA’s Chairman submits the annual Performance and Accountability 

Report to the President and Congress. 

Internal Control 

Internal controls are an organization’s policies and procedures used to reasonably 

ensure that (i) programs achieve their intended results; (ii) resources are used 

consistent with agency mission; (iii) programs and resources are protected from 

waste, fraud, and mismanagement; (iv) laws and regulations are followed; and (v) 

reliable and timely information is obtained, maintained, reported and used for 

decision making. The importance of management controls is addressed in many 

executive documents: 

•	 The Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) establishes specific 

requirements with regard to management controls. FMFIA requires an 

agency to conduct an annual evaluation of its internal accounting and 

administrative control system in accordance with guidance established by the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Further, the 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 1 
agency is required to submit an annual statement to the President and to the 

Congress on the status of the agency’s internal control system. 

•	 OMB Circular No. A-123 “Management Accountability and Control” provides 

guidance to Federal managers on improving the accountability and 

effectiveness of Federal programs and operations by establishing, assessing, 

correcting, and reporting on internal control. 

•	 FCA Policy and Procedures Manual 1007 “Evaluation of Internal Control 

Systems,” further outlines the FCA policies and procedures to be followed by 

Agency managers in evaluating, improving, and reporting on internal controls 

in their programs and administrative activities. 

FCA’s office directors are responsible for establishing and maintaining systems of 

internal control in their respective offices that conform to the Internal Control 

Standards. By October 31 of each year, office directors provide assurance letters to 

the Chairman stating they have performed an evaluation of internal control in their 

office in accordance with OMB and Agency’s guidance. 

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 

The objective of our review was to determine whether the Agency is adequately 

verifying and validating performance measure accomplishments presented in the 

FCA Performance and Accountability Report. We also evaluated the supporting 

documentation for the Agency’s internal control program review assessments. 

For the FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, we validated the accuracy 

of results reported for 14 performance measures. (See Appendix for performance 

measures selected). We reviewed supporting documentation and interviewed 

responsible staff on performance measure results. 

We reviewed the FY 2004 internal control risk assessments and supporting 

documentation for: 1) the Office of Examination (OE), 2) the Office of Policy and 

Analysis (OPA), 3) the Office of General Counsel (OGC), and 4) the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer (OCIO). These offices were selected because of their high 

vulnerability risk to the Agency. 

We conducted the audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued 

by the Comptroller General for audits of Federal organizations, programs, activities, 

and functions. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Our review found that FCA is committed to developing a comprehensive system for 

reporting performance results and assessing internal controls. However, some 

improvements are needed to ensure performance reporting accurately reflects 

accomplishments. In addition, the Agency’s internal management control program 

could be a more systematic integration of internal control review efforts and the 

review process documentation could be more standardized. We suggest a reputable 

approach. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 2 
Performance Measure Reporting 

As the GPRA process has evolved, more attention has been given to performance 

results. Specifically, attention is being focused on the processes used by agencies 

to verify and validate performance measure results data. For the FY 2004 

Performance and Accountability Report, we verified the accuracy of information 

reported for 14 performance measures. (The Appendix lists performance measures 

reviewed). We found that for 12 of the 14 performance measures, documentation 

supported performance results. However, FCA needs to clarify or explain the 

reporting process for the following two performance measures: 

•	 Percentage of instances in which the Agency solicits public comment and 

input on applicable regulatory initiatives using supplemental approaches to 

the notice and comment rulemaking process. 

•	 Availability of information technology resources and information to 

appropriate users to provide communication and information collection and 

delivery in a timely manner, as measured quarterly by reports on FCA 

network and Web components. 

We questioned if the reported results give the reader an accurate picture. 

Regulatory Initiatives Using Supplemental Approach 

OPA’s process for calculating applicable regulatory initiatives using supplemental 

approaches in some instances is, driven by Board actions that are more ministerial 

or administrative and, therefore, should not be included in the count. In addition, the 

interpretation of what constitutes a supplemental approach may be misguided. As a 

result, the number of supplemental approaches stated in the Performance and 

Accountability Report may be overstated. 

Our review of supporting documentation shows the OPA’s process for determining 

regulatory initiatives using supplemental approaches could be improved by adopting 

the following analysis: 

•	 When determining the number of regulatory initiatives the count should be 

based on significant Board actions such as adoption of a proposed rule or 

regulation amendments. Administrative actions, such as extending the 

comment period on a proposed rule, should not be included in the count. 

When determining the number of supplemental approaches, counts should be based 

on the number of regulatory initiatives using supplemental approaches not simply the 

number of Board actions. For example: 

•	 August 2003 the Agency published a proposed rule seeking public comments 

to a regulation on investments in Farmers’ Notes. 

•	 October 2003 the Board extended the comment period on Farmers’ Notes 

(supplemental approach). 

•	 April 2004 the Board finalized the regulation. 

According to OPA this regulatory initiative was counted as using two supplemental 

approaches based on the number of Board actions. We believe a more accurate 

count would be one, based on the single regulatory initiative (investments in 

Farmers’ Notes) using a supplemental approach. 

We also question whether OPA’s interpretation of what constitutes a supplemental 

approach is consistent with the meaning. In May 2004, the FCA Board took action to 

amend the list of related services by adding Farm Credit Bank to the list of 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 3 
institutions authorized to offer the services listed as “Financial Risk Management for 

Customer”. According to the OPA, this was highlighted on FCA’s Web site and 

included as an initiative using a supplemental approach. OPA feels this falls under 

the category of other unique approaches to gather a broad range of public input 

because other institutions would become aware of the services and might want to 

offer them. We question whether this constitutes a supplemental approach because 

methods should focus on gathering a broad range of public input and it is unclear 

how this initiative would gather input on the subject matter. 

OPA is currently revising its process for the FY 2005 Performance and Accountability 

Report submission. According to OPA, revisions will include defining applicable 

regulatory initiatives based on significant Board actions. In addition, OPA will ensure the 

supplemental approach count is based on the number of regulatory initiatives that 

actually use supplemental approaches versus just the number of Board actions. We 

commend OPA for taking prompt action to ensure data reported in the Performance and 

Accountability Report accurately reflect results. 

Availability of Information Technology Resources 

Our review shows the OCIO needs to clarify in the Performance and Accountability 

Report “the availability of information technology resources” calculation. According 

to the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the information technology resources 

availability time is computed using the following calculations: 

•	 Number of available minutes in each quarter=Total number of minutes in 

each quarter minus schedule down time for routine network maintenance. 

•	 Network service availability=Number of available minutes in each quarter 

minus unscheduled minutes network is down. 

•	 Percentage of service availability=Net service availability/ Number of 

available minutes in each quarter. 

When determining the number of available minutes in each quarter, the OCIO is 

subtracting out schedule maintenance downtime, thus making the network 

availability time less and the percentage for network service availability possibly 

higher. The common reader of the Performance and Accountability Report would 

interpret “network service availability” as the percentage of time the network is 

available at all times and not exclude routine maintenance down time. If routine 

maintenance downtime is excluded then it should be footnoted in the Performance 

and Accountability Report so there is a clear understanding of how the information 

technology availability is calculated. 

The CIO has taken action to include a footnote explaining how network availability 

time is calculated in the FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report. We 

commend the OCIO for taking prompt action to ensure data reported in the 

Performance and Accountability Report accurately reflect results. 

Agreed Upon Action 

1.	 The Office of Policy and Analysis Director will revise the process on reporting 

performance results for supplemental approach to provide a better match between 

the numbers of supplemental approach that are used during the rulemaking 

process for a single regulatory initiative. Also, the Director will review 

supplemental approaches counted in the Performance and Accountability Report 

to ensure methods used are consistent with the supplemental approach definition. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 4 
Internal Controls 

Internal controls are a major part of managing an organization. It comprises the 

plans, method and procedures used to meet mission, goals and objectives to support 

performance based management. Internal control also serves as the first line of 

defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting errors and fraud. 

Internal control is not a one-time event, but a series of actions and activities that 

occur throughout the Agency’s operation on an ongoing basis. Therefore, internal 

controls should be recognized as an integral part of the system managers use to 

regulate and guide the organization’s operation. 

Internal Control Reviews 

We reviewed the internal control assessments performed in FY 2004 for the following 

four offices: 1) the Office of Examination, 2) the Office of Policy and Analysis, 3) the 

Office of General Office, and 4) the Office of Chief Information Officer. These offices 

were selected because of their high vulnerability risk to the Agency. The Agency has 

established a process to assess and report on internal control. However, the 

process could be improved through a more systematic integration of internal control 

review efforts, approached and written in a more standardize format. 

Internal Control Integration. According to Agency guidance, each of the office 

directors is responsible for establishing and maintaining systems of internal control in 

their respective offices. This includes identifying potential risks, making internal 

control evaluations, reporting results and implementing corrective actions for 

weaknesses identified. Generally, we found the offices were conscientious in 

implementing an internal control program. However, internal control review 

approaches were often focused on specific processes within each of the offices and 

lacked overall Agency function reviews. For example, the OGC and the OPA are 

both involved in the regulation development process. However, there is no linkage 

between the two offices during the internal control review process. Each office 

performs reviews that are specific to their own office function. As a result, 

management may not have an overall picture of possible control risks in this area. 

Effective internal control involves a unified approach for assessing the vulnerability of 

various Agency functions. Agency functions that are conducted across the 

organization should be managed through an integrated effort that provides 

reasonable assurance the process is working efficiently and effectively. 

Review Process and Documentation. According to Agency guidance, when 

performing annual internal control reviews, each office should review the 

management control program through the completion of an assessment form that is 

tailored to identify risks in each given activity. Agency guidance provides an 

example of an assessment checklist form that can be used for this review. We found 

the process for completing assessments varied between offices. For example, the 

OE and the OPA used the assessment checklist to complete reviews. The checklists 

were comprehensively cross-referenced to supporting work papers with rationale 

thoroughly documented. The OGC and the OCIO did not use the assessment 

checklist but provided various types of documentation for overall conclusions 

reached. Documentation provided did assess some very important control factors 

however; it did not address all the areas covered in the Agency’s vulnerability 

assessment checklist such as staff training and delegation of management 

responsibility. Inconsistency in control review process and documentation can result 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 5 
in the assessments not properly measuring all the levels of risks for a given activity. 

By developing a systematic, organized, and structured approach to assess internal 

controls, the Agency can improve and maintain effective operations. 

Internal Control Changes 

In recent years internal control has received substantial notice largely in response to 

a wave of corporate financial scandals involving some very prominent companies in 

the United States. This has resulted in revisions to OMB Circular No. A-123, 

“Management Responsibility for Internal Control,” December 2004. The revisions 

emphasize the need for agencies to integrate and coordinate internal control 

assessments that synchronize all internal control-related activities. The circular 

recognizes that internal control should be an integral part of the entire cycle of 

planning, budgeting, management, accounting, and auditing. It should support the 

effectiveness and integrity every step of the process and provide continual feedback 

to management. In addition, personal accountability for results is essential, starting 

with top agency management and cascading down through the organization. The 

revised circular encourages the involvement of senior management councils in 

internal control assessments and monitoring. This can be an excellent means of 

establishing accountability and ownership. With the advent of a new circular, 

combined with the strategic studies FCA is currently conducting, Agency 

management has a significant opportunity to reshape the internal control program so 

it is an integral tool in improving effectiveness and accountability. A significant 

benefit of revising the internal control program would be standardized documentation 

throughout the Agency. 

Internal Control-Integrated Framework 

The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission provides 

an excellent framework that can help the Agency integrate its internal control 

program. The Internal Control—Integrated Framework mirrors concepts within the 

revised circular and is used by thousands of businesses to better control their 

activities in moving toward achievement of their established objectives. The 

framework shows a direct relationship between the objectives, which are what the 

Agency strives to achieve and the risk management components, which represent 

what is needed to achieve them. 

The relationship is depicted in a three-dimensional cube matrix. The first dimension 

represented by the vertical columns is the Agency’s objectives. The second 

dimension represented by the horizontal rows is the five interrelated standards that 

drive the way management runs the Agency. The third dimension represents the 

Agency’s functionalities. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 6 
 

 

Internal Control-Integrated Framework 

Further analysis of the framework shows the first dimension: operations, reporting 

and compliance are the objectives the Agency is trying to achieve with its internal 

control program. Operations represent effective and efficient use of resources. 

Reporting relates to reliable financial statements. Compliance is the Agency’s 

compliance with applicable law and regulations. 

The second dimension is the five interrelated standards that drive the way 

management runs the Agency. Each standard row cuts across and applies to all 

objective categories. 

•	 Control Environment—Individual attributes, including integrity, ethical value and 

competence and the environment in which they operate. They are the engine 

that drives the Agency and the foundation on which everything rests. 

•	 Risk Assessment—The identification and analysis of relevant risk associated 

with achieving the objectives, such as strategic and annual performance plans 

developed under the GPRA, and forming a basis for determining how risk 

should be managed. 

•	 Control Activities—The policies, procedures, techniques and mechanisms that 

enforce management directives. 

•	 Information and Communication—For the Agency to run and control its 

operations, it must have relevant, reliable and timely communications relating 

to internal control as well as external events. Information is needed throughout 

the Agency to achieve all of its objectives. 

•	 Monitoring—Internal controls should be designed to assure that ongoing 

monitoring occurs in the course of normal operations. 

The third dimension represents the Agency’s functionalities to which internal control 

applies. The FCA’s functionalities include examination, regulation development and 

financial statements. 

Given the inconsistent approach by various offices when assessing the current 

internal control program, we believe this framework offers numerous benefits to help 

the Agency achieve an integrated internal control approach. With the foundation of a 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 7 
mutual understanding, all parties will be able to speak a common language and 

communicate more effectively. In addition, management will be able to assess 

control systems against a standard and strengthen weaknesses. 

Recommendations 

1. The Chief of Staff should establish a senior assessment team as suggested 

by OMB Circular No. A-123, “Management Responsibility for Internal 

Control,” December 2004, to ensure a consistent level perspective is 

applied to the internal control program. 

2. Prototype the Committee of Sponsoring Organization framework on several 

agencies’ processes and obtain staff recommendations on how it can be 

adopted for Farm Credit Administration environment. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 8 
 

APPENDIX 

Below is a listing of the performance measures reviewed from the FY 2004 Performance 

and Accountability Report. 

Goal 1: 

Percentage of institutions with effective strategic business plans for providing constructive 

credit and related services to all potential customers. 

Percentage of direct-lender institutions with satisfactory consumer compliance with 

borrower rights examination ratings. 

Percentage of instances which Agency solicit public comment and input on applicable 

regulatory initiative using supplemental approaches to the notice and comment 

rulemaking process. 

Percentage of direct-lender institutions that have effective programs to furnish sound and 

constructive credit and related services to young, beginning, and small farmers, ranchers, 

and producers and harvesters of aquatic products or that have acceptable corrective 

action plans in place. 

Goal 2: 

Number of institutions placed in receivership due to financial failure during the previous 

12 months. 

The total assets of FCS institutions with composite Financial Institution Ratings Systems 

(FIRS) of “1” or “2” divided by the total assets of FCS institutions. 

Percentage of FCS institutions with composite FIRS ratings of “3” or “4”, or “5” with 

corrective action plans in place to address the underlying problems. 

Percentage of direct-lender institutions with adverse assets to risk funds less than 100 

percent. 

Percentage of institutions complying with all regulatory capital ratio requirements. 

Percentage of instances of noncompliance with or regulations resolved to FCA 

satisfaction. 

Percentage of institutions that have effective audit and review programs. 

Goal 3: 

Percentage of Agency staff with broadband connectivity remotely. 

Percentage of Agency Web pages and electronic devices that are section 508 

accessibility compliant. 

Availability of information technology resources and information to appropriate users to 

provide communication and information collection and delivery in a timely manner, as 

measured quarterly by reports on FCA network and Web components. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 9 
 

 

 

 

 

REPORT 

Fraud  Waste  Abuse  Mismanagement 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Phone: Toll Free (800) 437-7322 

(703) 883-4316 

 Fax: (703) 883-4059 

 e-mail: fca-ig-hotline@starpower.net 

 mail: Farm Credit Administration 

Office of Inspector General Hotline 

1501 Farm Credit Drive 

McLean, VA 22102-5090