INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITING PUBLIC EVALUATIONS 

The format of all of the public evaluation templates follows the provisions of 

amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act that require the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation (Agencies) to: 

1. Rate the institution's overall performance in meeting the credit needs of its 

community; 

2. For an interstate institution, rate each state in which the bank has branches 

or multistate metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in which the institution 

has branches in more than one state; and 

3. Separately present the conclusions for the performance test(s) or criteria 

considered in arriving at the rating as well as the facts and data supporting 

those conclusions for each MSA in which the institution has branches. 

The contents of the public evaluation will vary depending on the nature of the institution 

examined and the examination method used. Public evaluation templates for small 

institutions, intermediate small institutions, large institutions, wholesale and limited 

purpose institutions, and institutions operating under approved strategic plans have been 

prepared by the Agencies. These templates provide guidance regarding the structure and 

contents of the public evaluations. Except for the intrastate public evaluations for small 

institutions and intermediate small institutions, the templates are structured to meet the 

requirements that the CRA imposes on public evaluations for interstate institutions. The 

samples can easily be adjusted to suit the requirements for institutions with branches in 

only one state. 

Evaluations for Institutions with Branches in Only One State. 

Regardless of the examination method used, the public evaluation for institutions with 

branches in only one state must contain the institution's overall CRA rating and the 

conclusions for the performance test(s) or criteria upon which the rating is based. No 

state or multistate MSA rating is needed for intrastate institutions. Also, there is no 

requirement to rate an institution’s performance in each assessment area. Rather, the 

public evaluation must present conclusions about the institution’s performance in the 

assessment area(s) subject to the following guidance: 

1. If the institution has branches in more than one MSA, the public evaluation must 

present the conclusions for each performance test(s) or criterion, along with 

supporting facts and data, separately for each MSA. 
2. If the institution has defined more than one assessment area within a 

nonmetropolitan statewide area, separate discussion of CRA performance within a 

nonmetropolitan statewide area for intrastate institutions that have branches in 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is optional because the performance in 

the nonmetropolitan areas has been discussed in the overall evaluation of the 

institution. Examiners may wish to discuss in greater detail, however, the 

assessment areas within the nonmetropolitan statewide areas that were reviewed 

using the examination procedures for (1) intrastate institutions with branches in 

MSAs or nonmetropolitan areas or (2) intrastate institutions with branches only in 

nonmetropolitan areas. 

More detailed discussions of each assessment area examined should follow the 

appropriate MSA and nonmetropolitan area presentation. 

Evaluations for Interstate Institutions 

In addition to the institution's overall CRA rating, public evaluations for interstate 

institutions must contain ratings for each state in which the institution has branches and 

multistate MSA in which the institution has branches in more than one state of the 

multistate MSA. The public evaluation for interstate institutions is, therefore, organized 

to present the institution's overall rating first, followed by the multistate MSA rating(s), 

and then the state rating(s). The discussion of the overall institution, multistate MSA, 

and state ratings must include the conclusions for the performance test(s) or criteria upon 

which the rating(s) is based. An institution’s performance in each assessment area is not 

rated. Rather, the public evaluation must present the conclusions about the institution’s 

performance in the assessment area(s) subject to the following guidance: 

1. Multistate MSA presentations should be followed by discussions of the 

performance within assessment area(s) within the multistate MSA. 

2. Separate MSA presentations for each MSA where the institution has branches 

should follow the appropriate state presentation. A discussion of an institution’s 

CRA performance within a nonmetropolitan area statewide area is required for 

institutions with branches in two or more states. Include a discussion about how 

the examination of the institution was performed, including a list of the individual 

branches examined. 

Again, more detailed assessment area discussions follow the applicable MSA and 

nonmetropolitan area discussions. 

Conclusions based on Performance Tests 
The CRA requires the Agencies to present conclusions for each of the performance test(s) 

or criteria considered in arriving at a rating. The performance evaluations should reflect 

the conclusions reached under these performance tests. 

• For large institutions, the public evaluation must indicate the conclusions 

reached under the lending, investment, and service tests. 

• For intermediate small institutions, the public evaluation must indicate the 

conclusions under the lending and community development tests. 

• For small institutions, the streamlined assessment method for small 

institutions focuses on lending performance. However, to the extent that 

investment and service performance were considered in rating a small 

institution "Outstanding," the conclusions for each must be in the public 

evaluation. 

• For wholesale and limited purpose institutions, conclusions for the 

community development test must be discussed in the performance 

evaluation. 

• Finally, for institutions that operate under an approved strategic plan, the 

performance evaluation for those institutions must contain conclusions for 

the tests used in the examination. 

Hybrid Performance Evaluations 

When an institution is examined under more than one examination method, the examiner 

should develop a hybrid performance evaluation. The evaluation should state the 

examination methods used in the General Information section. In addition, the discussion 

of the scope should indicate the examination method that was used in each assessment 

area examined. Finally, discussions of the analysis used under each assessment area 

presentation should note the applicable examination method. 

Charts, Tables and Appendices 

Charts and tables should be used throughout the public evaluation to facilitate discussion 

of the institution's performance. In addition, the inclusion of one or more appendices may 

facilitate the presentation of information in the public evaluation. For example, 

Appendix A is a chart describing the scope of the examination and should be used for 

institutions with numerous assessment areas. Appendix B should be used to summarize 

the state ratings for interstate institutions. Other charts and tables may be used to assist 

the reader and amplify the discussion of an institution's performance.