SURVEY REPORT 

Survey of 

Farm Credit System 

Institutions Regarding the 

Agency’s Examination Function 

FARM CREDIT 

ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

First and Second Quarters 

Fiscal Year 2023 

(October 1, 2022 - March 31, 2023) 

Issued September 7, 2023 
 Executive Summary

Each fiscal year (FY) quarter, the Farm Credit Administration Office of 

Examination (OE) identifies Farm Credit System (System) institutions 

that can provide meaningful survey responses for that period. The 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides a survey report

semiannually with two quarters of survey responses. This report 

includes the response data for the first and second quarters of FY 

2023, as well as some historical data for comparison. 

OE identified a total of 22 System institutions to survey for the first 

and second quarters of FY 2023 (October 1, 2022 – March 31, 2023). 

OIG sent surveys to those institutions and 17 institutions completed 

the survey (77% response rate).

The table below shows quarterly average numerical rating ranges and 

total average numerical ratings for survey statements 1-8 for the first 

and second quarters of FY 2023, as well as the previous two quarters 

for comparison. A “1” reflects a positive rating and a “5” reflects a 

negative rating. 

Average Numerical Ratings

FY/

Quarter

Average Numerical

Rating Range

Total Average

Numerical Rating

FY23/Q2 1.4 – 1.9 1.6

FY23/Q1 1.3 – 2.0 1.8

FY22/Q4 1.5 – 2.3 1.8

FY22/Q3 1.8 – 2.5 2.1

OIG lists comments with any perceived negative feedback separately 

for survey statements 1-8 and 11 in this report. We include statistical 

information about the negative comments in a new report section. 

The System institutions we asked 

to respond to the survey are those 

institutions that: 

1. Received a Report of 

Examination during the FY 

quarters; or

2. Had significant examination 

activity and interface with OE 

during the same period.

The survey contains 11 statements 

and asks respondents to rate eight 

of those statements as:

Completely Agree 1 

Agree 2 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 

Disagree 4 

Completely Disagree 5 

Does Not Apply 6 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS_______________________________________________________________________ 1

BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ____________________________________________________________________ 1

SURVEY RESULTS __________________________________________________________________________________________ 2

EXAMINATION PROCESS __________________________________________________________________________________ 2

Statement #1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 2

Statement #2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 3

Statement #3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 4

Statement #4 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 5

COMMUNICATIONS _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6

Statement #5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 6

Statement #6 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 7

Statement #7 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 8

Statement #8 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 9

GENERAL QUESTIONS ___________________________________________________________________________________ 10

Statement #9 _________________________________________________________________________________________ 10

Statement #10 ________________________________________________________________________________________ 11

Statement #11 ________________________________________________________________________________________ 11

Request for OIG Contact______________________________________________________________________________ 12

STATISTICAL INFORMATION ON NEGATIVE COMMENTS _____________________________________________ 12
1 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

EIC Examiner-in-Charge

FCA Farm Credit Administration

FCS Farm Credit System

FY Fiscal Year

MRA Matter Requiring Attention

OE Office of Examination

OIG Office of Inspector General

BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

Each fiscal year (FY) quarter the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) Office of Examination (OE) 

identifies Farm Credit System (FCS or System) institutions that can provide meaningful survey 

responses for that period. The criteria for including a System institution in the survey are:

1. The institution received a Report of Examination during the FY quarter; or

2. There was significant examination activity and interface with an institution during the same 

period.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) generally provides a survey report semiannually for two 

quarters of survey responses for the periods extending from October 1 through March 31 and 

April 1 through September 30. This report includes the response data for the first and second

quarters of FY 2023. 

The survey asks respondents to rate eight survey statements from “1” (Completely Agree) to “5” 

(Completely Disagree), or “6” if the statement does not apply. The rating choices are:

Completely Agree 1 

Agree 2 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 

Disagree 4 

Completely Disagree 5 

Does Not Apply* 6 

*We do not include ratings of “6” in rating averages because a “6” will skew the numerical average 

negatively even though the statement is not applicable to the institution.

For survey statements 1-8, we provide the quarterly average numerical ratings. For comparison, 

we provide the two most recent FYs for which survey data was collected (FYs 2021 and 2022 for 

this report). Statements 9-11 are not numerically rated.
2 

Survey statements 1-4 pertain to the examination process generally and statements 5-8 pertain 

specifically to communications during the examination. Statements 9-11 solicit narrative feedback 

on the examination process. Respondents may submit comments for each of the 11 survey 

statements. 

The report includes narrative responses verbatim, except certain information identifying the 

institution or examiners has been removed (e.g., institution and examiner names and dates). 

Additionally, we corrected spelling and punctuation errors and spelled out some acronyms or 

abbreviations. We include bracketed text to show where we removed identifying information or 

to provide clarification to a response. We list comments with any perceived negative feedback

separately for survey statements 1-8 and 11. 

At the end of the survey we ask whether the respondent would like the OIG to contact the 

institution confidentially to discuss the institution’s submitted responses. 

SURVEY RESULTS

EXAMINATION PROCESS

Statement #1

The scope of examination activities was focused on areas of risk to the institution and 

appropriate for the size, complexity, and risk profile of the institution.

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

First Second Third Fourth FY 

FY Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Average

2023 1.7 1.6

2022 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1*

2021 N/A 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average calculated using the average of the quarterly averages shown in 

the table. 

Comments: 

• We would agree that the examination scope was focused on areas of risk appropriate for 

the size and complexity of the organization. 

• Overall, the review scope was appropriate for the institution based on our size and risk 

profile. There were a few areas of focus that were not viewed as high priority or high-risk 

areas.

• We believe the exam areas included in the scope of our most recent exam were 

appropriate.

• [Institution names removed] merged effective [date removed]. Both institutions had their 

routine safety and soundness examinations completed [timeframe removed]. FCA 

provided reasonable consideration based on the ongoing merger at the time, and 

executed an examination scope that was appropriate. 

• Overall the areas reviewed by the examination team were consistent with the examination 

focus areas highlighted by the FCA and were appropriate given our size and risk profile. 
3 

We appreciate the examination team's willingness to discuss regulatory expectations for 

System institutions, and how that can be varied based on an institution's size and 

complexity. 

• There were no specific issues to note. The Examination Team was fair and reasonable in 

their examination inquiries. The questioning was appropriate for our institution's risk 

profile.

• Scope was appropriate for our size and risk profile.

• Scope of examination activities were appropriate for [our institution’s] size, complexity, 

and risk profile.

• The examination scope was consistent with the National Oversight Plan (NOP) and the risk 

and complexity profile of the institution. The [timeframe removed] mergers with 

[institution names removed] necessitated a more in-depth exam, and most appropriate 

for the size, complexity, and risk profile of the institution.

Statement #2

Examiners appropriately applied laws, regulations, and other regulatory criteria to 

examination findings and conclusions.

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

First Second Third Fourth FY 

FY Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Average

2023 1.8 1.6

2022 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.8 2.0*

2021 N/A 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.7

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average calculated using the average of the quarterly averages shown in 

the table. 

Comments: 

• We had no disagreements or alternative interpretations of laws, regulations or other 

regulatory criteria with our exam team.

• The members of the examination team clearly communicated their views related to the 

applicability of regulations as well as related guidance including the Examination Manual, 

bookletters and informational memoranda. Our senior leadership team has a deeper 

understanding of the FCA's expectations related to compliance with all FCA criteria.

• Examiners are well prepared and appropriately apply the laws, regulations and guidance. 

It is my personal expectation that I remain informed on key matters which typically appear 

in the exam scope for my professional duties, such as Standards of Conduct, Whistleblower 

and Criminal Referrals. The annual NOP is helpful as well.

• The examination team's conclusions and comments were very consistent with laws and 

regulations. Examiners engaged in discussions with staff and board/audit committee, with 

comments supported by laws, regulations and other regulatory guidance such as Exam 

Manual updates. Examiners were very thorough and kept in close contact with appropriate 

staff, resulting in no surprises at exit conference or the Report of Exam to the board.
4 

Comments perceived with negative feedback: 

• We generally agree with this statement. There were a few situations where findings 

appeared to have reflected the reviewer's views on best practices rather than specific 

regulations or official communications. We appreciated that management's feedback was 

considered in the final exam report.

• Examiners appropriately applied laws, regulations, and other criteria to noted findings and 

documented conclusions. However, one finding received regarding [words removed]

coding does not have any clear FCA guidance associated with it. The proper coding for 

[words removed] is not addressed in any regulations or guidance. We understand FCA’s 

need to have consistent reporting throughout the Farm Credit System, and we are happy 

to code [word removed] as directed by FCA, but we do not feel it is proper for FCA to 

characterize a coding difference caused by the absence of clear guidance as “improper” or 

a “weakness.”

Statement #3

The matters requiring attention and any supervisory agreement with FCA assisted the board 

and management in addressing the risks of the institution.

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

First Second Third Fourth FY 

FY Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Average

2023 2.0 1.6

2022 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2*

2021 N/A 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.8

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average calculated using the average of the quarterly averages shown in 

the table. 

Comments: 

• The senior members of the examination team engaged in considerable dialogue with staff 

on the findings, including Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs). These conversations were 

beneficial to our leadership and helped develop our understanding of the FCA's expected 

response on items noted. The examiners interacted with directors as needed; the Board 

found the final report and in-person discussion at the Board meeting insightful. 

• The institution does not operate under a supervisory agreement. Matters requiring 

attention were appropriately focused on addressing FCA regulatory concerns and were 

communicated effectively.

• Examiners are not overly technical when providing comments or MRAs and are open to 

discussions concerning resolution of those matters.

• Addressing the MRAs from this exam will increase controls and mitigate risks.

Comments perceived with negative feedback: 

• Generally, the MRAs brought awareness of the risks in the institution and created 

accountability with responsible parties for resolution. There were a few areas not viewed 

as substantive risk or rising to the level of assisting with managing safety and soundness.
5 

Statement #4

The examiners were professional and efficiently conducted examination activities.

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

FY

First 

Quarter

Second 

Quarter

Third 

Quarter

Fourth 

Quarter

FY 

Average

2023 1.3 1.4

2022 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.6*

2021 N/A 1.2 2.0 1.4 1.5

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average calculated using the average of the quarterly averages shown in 

the table. 

Comments: 

• The team of examiners was very professional and pleasant to work with.

• All interactions between FCA examiners and the institution's board and management 

teams were professional and relevant to the examination process. The examination team 

was respectful of management's time and other work commitments during the exam.

• The examination team worked collaboratively towards providing added value 

recommendations that improved the institution's safety and soundness. We appreciate the 

fact that we have a good relationship with our Examiner-In-Charge (EIC). The examiners 

were professional and understood the institution's operations to an acceptable level where 

examination activities were efficient. 

• We appreciate the working relationship. They are appropriately reactive to questions and 

challenges.1

• Examiners were professional and efficient during the examination process.

• The Examination Team was very accommodating when scheduling meetings or calls with 

our staff to ask questions or discuss findings. 

• All examiners were very professional and efficiently conducted all examination activities.

• Examiners are professional and efficient in conducting their examinations. I have 

experienced good communication and positive discussions concerning matters within the 

scope of the examination. To the extent some form of corrective action is necessary, the 

examination team is realistic in setting timeframes and reasonable in the institution’s 

efforts to correct such matters.

• The examination team was extremely professional and efficient. Very considerate of the 

institution staff and time demands. The examiners exhibited the highest professionalism, 

and were focused on moving through each exam function.

Comments perceived with negative feedback: 

• The examiners were professional in all of their dealings with our staff. Meetings were 

efficient and effective. The examination team included some new members and we look 

forward to working with them as they gain a deeper understanding of our institution. We 

did note that documents submitted through the portal were requested numerous times; 

we will work with the exam team to make this process more efficient in the future.

1 Two institutions provided the same comment.
6 

• The efficiency of our examination was impacted by some unexpected turnover during our 

exam. The remaining team handled this development well; however, it resulted in some 

exam inefficiency. 

• The examination team was professional in their communications with our institution 

personnel. The examination fieldwork process occurred over a longer length of time than 

expected. Onsite fieldwork was conducted as expected, however, post onsite work seemed 

to extend on past our expectations.

COMMUNICATIONS

Statement #5

Communications between the Office of Examination staff and the institution were clear, 

accurate, and timely.

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

FY

First 

Quarter

Second 

Quarter

Third 

Quarter

Fourth 

Quarter

FY 

Average

2023 1.7 1.9

2022 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.6 1.8*

2021 N/A 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.8

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average calculated using the average of the quarterly averages shown in 

the table. 

Comments: 

• All examiners worked well with institution management and provided questions and 

requests that were easy to understand and timely as we worked through the exam process.

• Communication was proactive, appropriate and included proper stakeholders. 

• Management felt the examination process was efficient and all communications from the 

examination team were clear. Management was provided the opportunity to seek 

clarification when needed and to provide feedback on noted findings and MRAs.

• The EIC was very accommodating to key management scheduling conflicts through the 

course of the examination activities. The EIC was also very honest and transparent about 

the areas of concern with a willingness to listen to and consider management's 

perspectives.

• Scope, timeline, and expectations were clearly communicated.2

• All communications with examiners were clear, accurate, and timely.

• Examiners were professional and efficiently conducted exam activities. Communications 

between the [OE] staff and institution staff were clear, accurate, and timely.

• Timely and transparent lines of communication that were clear and helpful. With the detail 

and frequency of communication between the OE staff and [institution] staff, there were 

no surprises at the exit conference or the Report of Exam to the board.

2 Two institutions provided the same comment. 
7 

Comments perceived with negative feedback: 

• The closeout discussions after each area of examination were beneficial and allowed 

management to provide timely responses to issues raised. There were situations where we 

received material with limited time to review prior to scheduled calls or feedback sessions. 

More time to review and formulate responses would have been beneficial.

• Lack of experience within the exam team hindered some discussions.

• There was some turnover during our examination process which impacted the timeliness 

of communication; appropriate adjustments helped to address. The tone throughout the 

examination work and delivery of the examination outcome was appropriate.

• The examination team provided clear communications to our [institution] via onsite 

discussions, emails, and calls. It would be beneficial for close-out call outlines and the draft 

findings to be communicated timelier (i.e., at least 24 hours beforehand) to allow 

appropriate review prior to the close-out calls occurring.

Statement #6

Examination communications included the appropriate amount and type of information to 

help the board and audit committee fulfill their oversight responsibilities.

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

First Second Third Fourth FY 

FY Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Average

2023 1.6 1.6

2022 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8*

2021 N/A 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.5

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average calculated using the average of the quarterly averages shown in 

the table. 

Comments: 

• Examiners provided the information necessary for Board and Audit Committee to fulfill 

their oversight responsibilities. They were also available to answer questions and 

communicate expectations. 

• The Board felt that the final examination report was clear. The in-person discussion at the 

Board meeting allowed the directors to ask questions and understand the examination 

team's perspective on the noted findings. 

• The Board was appreciative of FCA's open dialogue and transparency at the conclusion of 

examination activities and during the final report presentation. The Board appreciates 

FCA's willingness to recognize the institution's maturation and progressive approach 

compared to institutions of similar risk, size, and scope.

• Communications via close-out call conversations, the examination report (which contained 

recommendations and an MRA), and virtual discussions with the Audit Committee and 

Board were clear and contained information that will help the Board and Audit Committee 

fulfill their responsibilities as risk areas were identified as needing improvements.

• The board presentation of the examination provided helpful dialog with the Board and 

Audit Committee. The board and audit committee chairs attended the exit conference, and 

the entire board attended the in-person Report of Examination along with appropriate 

staff. These were detailed and thorough. The board/audit committee benefitted by an 
8 

executive session with the examiners answering their questions and elaborating in further 

detail to some of the discussion around topics raised to the examiners.

• A summary of findings and communications was provided a few days before the close-out 

call. Given the findings were relatively minor, that communication was adequate. Had the 

findings been more significant, I would have appreciated the opportunity to be in a 

discussion with FCA and management prior to the close-out call. The discussion at the 

close-out call allowed me to share the findings with Audit Committee in more detail.

Statement #7

Examiners fairly considered the views and responses of the board and management in 

formulating conclusions and matters requiring attention. 

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

FY

First 

Quarter

Second 

Quarter

Third 

Quarter

Fourth 

Quarter

FY 

Average

2023 2.0 1.6

2022 1.9 1.6 2.5 2.0 2.0*

2021 N/A 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.7

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average calculated using the average of the quarterly averages shown in 

the table. 

Comments: 

• Management was given the opportunity to discuss draft findings and provide input. The 

FCA staff were open to the discussion and considered our responses when formulating 

final conclusions.

• The examination team was open and available to hearing management views. The Board 

and management were appreciative of the opportunities provided to clarify business 

practices, risk profiles and controls as applicable. 

• Cooperative and fair when discussing issues.3

• Examiners fairly considered the views and responses of the Board and management.

• The examination team seeks out a dialogue concerning their review and is receptive to the 

results of those discussions. They are never confrontational or condescending.

• Good discussions occurred as questions arose throughout the exam that allowed both 

parties to understand each situation and agree upon the conclusions reached. 

• Examiners were extremely fair and considered the responses and views of the institution. 

There were no matters requiring attention. The examiners relayed during the exit 

conference that they had certain discussions and agreements for action items with 

management as appropriate.

3 Two institutions provided the same comment.
9 

Statement #8

FCS-wide guidance from the Office of Examination was proactive and helpful.

Average Numerical Ratings by FY Quarter

First Second Third Fourth FY 

FY Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Average

2023 2.0 1.6

2022 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.1*

2021 N/A 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.9

*FY 2022 average calculated using aggregated response data; FY 2021 

average using the average of the quarterly averages shown in the table. 

Comments: 

• FCS-wide guidance is very helpful to understand the examination team's areas of focus.

• Board and management appreciate the Agency's commitment to find common ground 

with the System institutions to develop common sense regulatory guidance. 

• Very helpful.

• The board referenced the revisions to the Exam Manual related to audit and other areas, 

i.e., compliance. These revisions provide additional guidance to the staff and board.

Comments perceived with negative feedback: 

• The Office of Examination has clearly communicated its areas of focus. Institutions receive 

regular guidance/communications, and it can be a large amount of information. A 

summary of significant changes would be helpful.

• In general, FCA guidance is helpful in identifying recommended best practices. Guidance 

was referenced to support one finding but the guidance did not specifically address the 

finding. (See answer to question #2 above.) While it was not an issue in the most recent 

examination, in the past some examiners have at times treated guidance as mandatory, 

which should be avoided. 

o [For reference, response to statement #2 is provided here.] Examiners appropriately 

applied laws, regulations, and other criteria to noted findings and documented 

conclusions. However, one finding received regarding [words removed] coding does 

not have any clear FCA guidance associated with it. The proper coding for [words 

removed] is not addressed in any regulations or guidance. We understand FCA’s need 

to have consistent reporting throughout the Farm Credit System, and we are happy to 

code [word removed] as directed by FCA, but we do not feel it is proper for FCA to 

characterize a coding difference caused by the absence of clear guidance as 

“improper” or a “weakness.”
10

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Statement #9 

What aspect of the examination process did you find most beneficial? 

Comments: 

• The week of onsite work.

• The in-person meeting/exam closeout with the full board of directors was very beneficial, 

especially for new directors.

• Upfront communication around the scope and expectations of the examination. Close-out 

discussions after each area of the review. A willingness to have open dialog around issues 

and considering management's input when formulating final conclusions. Detailed 

interactions on specific issues gave insight into actual application and interpretation of 

guidance.

• During our most recently completed statutory exam, the FCA exam team piloted the 

modified report of examination which prioritized discussion of examination results, and 

included the scope of examination activities as an attachment. The modified format 

allowed management and board members to focus on the highest priority items of the 

exam process and review the lower risk/more routine items in the attachment. Additionally, 

the EIC assigned to the institution held routine update meetings/calls with management 

and the Board as necessary which ensured all parties were updated on all aspects of the 

exam process. 

• Open two-way communication. Professional and responsive examination team.

• The examination was thorough and conducted in a professional manner. The Board and 

management found the dialogue with the exam team on issues of concern to be useful. 

The mix of in-person and remote meetings was efficient. We look forward to working with 

the newer members of the team to help them understand our business and risks. 

• The examination team's cordial attitudes and willingness to work collaboratively within the 

confines of the adopted regulations. We also appreciate the examination team's efficient 

communication throughout the course of the examination.

• Insight on key risk issues impacting the Farm Credit System.4

• The communicated schedule of the audit was adhered to.

• Tone of the examination activity remains helpful and insightful. We appreciate the 

examination approach and willingness to bring insights to the examination process that 

are appropriate to staff, board, and board committees.

• The clarity provided by the Examination Team when discussing their conclusions and their 

willingness to address our questions or concerns relating to each matter. 

• The professionalism of all of the Examiners.

• We find the proactive scheduling of calls to be of great assistance. We really like the 

opening session and the ability to meet the team in person. The examination team is 

professional in their communications and always respectful in understanding my role in 

compliance matters. They make helpful comments.

• Discussions that occurred throughout the exam allowed for continuous learning and 

understanding.

4 Two institutions provided the same comment.
11

• The open communication and dialogue with the EIC, Senior Examiner and the entire exam 

team. Communication and face-to-face presentation of the Report of Examination.

Statement #10 

What aspect of the examination process did you find least beneficial? 

Comments: 

• Review topics or findings that do not reflect specific regulations or official 

communications.

• There was nothing in the process that was deemed “least beneficial.” One suggestion we 

could offer is to try to be concise when presenting the Report of Examination, drawing out 

key points for discussion. The [institution] understands there are likely certain criteria that 

must be met when delivering the Report of Examination to meet standards. The message 

is clearer to the audience when it is delivered in a thoughtful and concise fashion, where 

it is appropriate to do so.

• As mentioned above, while the examination was conducted in an efficient manner overall, 

the submission of documents through the portal is not always successful and results in 

many duplicate requests by the examination team. During the next exam cycle we will work 

with the examination team to ensure all documents are received by the FCA in a timely 

manner.

• Lack of experience of the EIC and below.

• There were times that we fielded multiple requests for information and the exam period 

was conducted during an active time.

• None. All aspects of the examination seemed appropriate.

• The timing of certain parts of the exam. The areas of the exam that are managed by our 

Finance Team were not started until directly after the new year when that team is busiest 

and under the strictest time constraints. Moving that piece to earlier in the exam fieldwork 

stage would have allowed internal resources to be better managed.

• No unfavorable aspects were identified. As a board member, all aspects of the examination 

process are beneficial as we provide oversight to the institution.

Statement #11 

Please provide any comments from the Board as a whole regarding the examination process 

not provided in the preceding responses.

Comments: 

• Overall, we thought the exam process went well.

• Overall, a good report with limited findings. Appeared this examination focused more on 

safety and soundness issues (back to the basics). Provided better perspective on oversight 

versus cost/effectiveness.

• The Board appreciates the proactive communication that the FCA Examination team 

provides throughout the process. The Board notes that including the Chairman of the 

Board and Chairman of the Audit Committee in the exit conferences and providing 

communication to them in advance of the final presentation of the Report of Examination 

to the full board is extremely helpful. The Board appreciates the opportunity to ask 

questions and to have open dialogue with the Agency. 
12

• As noted above, the Board found the final report and in-person discussion at the Board 

meeting insightful.

• The meetings with Board participation were extremely insightful. The Executive Session 

with the Examination Team provided additional assurance and accessibility in the event 

there were items needing further insight. 

• The FCA team was professional and communicated well with the Board. It was very good 

having the Examiners on site.

• The Board and Audit Committee benefited from the examination presentation and dialog. 

They appreciated the on-site in-person discussion.

• Overall, the exam process was in line with expectations and appropriate conversations 

occurred between the exam team, staff, and the board so that there were no surprises 

when the draft and final reports were issued. Having open transparent conversations is 

important to our institution and allows for the best possible response to any issues that 

may occur during an examination process. 

• Appreciation of the examination team's professional and equitable approach to the exam 

process. The board appreciated the professionalism of the examination team. The 

examiners were thorough and communicative throughout the exam process.

Comments perceived with negative feedback: 

• The examination presentation and discussion with the Board fell short of expectations. The 

tone was not commensurate with exam findings.

Request for OIG Contact

Would you like the Office of Inspector General to contact you confidentially to discuss your 

survey responses and/or the examination?

None of the institutions surveyed for this report indicated that they would like a call from the OIG. 

STATISTICAL INFORMATION ON NEGATIVE COMMENTS

Below is statistical information on the negative comments provided by the 17 institutions that 

responded to the survey for the first and second quarters of FY 2023. OIG lists separately 

comments with any perceived negative feedback for survey statements 1-8 and 11 in this report. 

Ten institutions, or 58.8%, had all positive comments. Five institutions, or 29.4%, provided at least 

one negative comment in their narrative responses. Two institutions provided no comments.

Number of Institutions Providing Negative Comments

Number of Negative 

Comments Provided Number of Institutions Percentage of Institutions

No comments provided 2 11.8%

0 10 58.8%

1-2 3 17.6%

3-4 1 5.9%

5-6 1 5.9%

7-8 0 0%

9 0 0%
REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, &

MISMANAGEMENT

Fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in government concerns everyone: Office 

of Inspector General staff, Farm Credit Administration employees, Congress, and the 

general public. We actively solicit allegations of any inefficient and wasteful 

practices, fraud, and mismanagement related to FCA programs and operations. You 

can report allegations to us in several ways:

Phone: (800) 437-7322 (Toll-Free)

(703) 883-4316

Email: fca-ig-hotline@rcn.com

Mail: 1501 Farm Credit Drive

McLean, VA 22102-5090

To learn more about reporting wrongdoing to the OIG, please visit our website at 

https://www.fca.gov/about/inspector-general.