Farm Credit Administration

Office of Inspector General

Audit Report 

Farm Credit Administration’s 

Examiner Staffing Program

A-22-03 

January 30, 2023
1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102 703-883-4030 www.fca.gov/about/inspector-general

January 30, 2023

The Honorable Vincent G. Logan, Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

The Honorable Jeffery S. Hall, Board Member

The Honorable Glen R. Smith, Board Member

Farm Credit Administration

1501 Farm Credit Drive

McLean, Virginia 22102-5090

Dear Chairman Logan and Board Members Hall and Smith: 

The Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the Farm Credit Administration’s (FCA or Agency) 

examiner staffing program. The objective of the audit was to evaluate FCA’s examination staffing 

processes. We found that FCA developed and implemented processes to strengthen examiner staffing. 

The Agency allocated resources to examiner recruiting efforts and established recruiting programs for 

entry-level examiners. The Agency also implemented a variety of tools and processes to staff 

examination projects. 

We identified opportunities to improve examiner staffing processes. Specifically, we identified 

improvements needed in collecting recruiting information, analyzing recruiting efforts, and securing 

data collected on potential employees. We also identified opportunities to improve documentation of

examiner rotation policies and scheduling. Lastly, we noted concerns with the collection and storage of 

data on former employees. 

As part of our audit, we conducted a survey to better understand examiner recruiting and staffing 

efforts and gather examination staff feedback. The survey contained 13 questions and was completed 

by 91 of the 97 recipients. While we understand there are many variables that impact survey responses, 

we think this feedback is useful to better understand and plan Agency efforts in these areas. 

We made seven recommendations to improve examiner staffing. FCA management agreed with the 

recommendations and provided corrective actions that were responsive to our recommendations. 

Because of the actions initiated by the Office of Examination during the audit, we consider 

recommendation 4 closed.

We appreciate the courtesies and professionalism extended by FCA to our staff during the audit. If you 

have any questions about this audit, we would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience. 

Respectfully,

Sonya K. Cerne 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Farm Credit Administration’s Examiner Staffing Program 

Report No. A-22-03 January 30, 2023

Objective 

The objective of this audit was to 

evaluate FCA’s examination staffing 

processes. 

Scope

Staffing processes include the 

recruiting, scheduling, rotating, and 

retention of FCA examiners.

Recommendations

The Office of Inspector General made 

seven recommendations to the Office 

of Examination to strengthen the 

Agency’s examiner staffing program. 

The recommendations focused on 

improving examiner recruiting 

efforts, documenting the Agency’s 

examiner rotation policies and 

procedures, and strengthening 

controls for the collection and 

storage of data on potential and 

former employees.

Agency Response

Management agreed with, and 

provided corrective actions for, all 

recommendations. Because of the 

actions initiated during the audit, we 

consider recommendation 4 closed.

Why We did This Audit

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) has an important mission to 

uphold in ensuring that all Farm Credit System institutions are safe, 

sound, and dependable sources of credit and related services. The FCA 

Board directs the maintenance of a risk-based approach to oversight 

and examination, and the Office of Examination (OE) must maintain 

staff resources to fulfill the Agency’s mission. Because examiners are an 

essential link with System institutions through examination and 

oversight, it is imperative for the Agency to have a trained and 

developed examination talent pool to perform the work. We performed 

this audit to evaluate FCA’s actions for recruiting and staffing. 

How We Did This Audit

We reviewed FCA’s recruiting schedules, budget documentation, time 

code data, and other information to determine processes implemented 

for, and resources expended on, recruiting efforts. We reviewed OE’s 

planning process, scheduling tool, and attrition database for 

information on staffing, scheduling, and rotation of examination staff. 

We compared examiner-in-charge assignments for the last three 

examination cycles and reviewed assignment information. We also 

issued a survey to current examination staff that were hired by FCA 

within the last ten years. 

What We Found

The Agency has established, devoted resources to, and budgeted for, 

an examiner recruiting program. The Agency also implemented a 

variety of tools and processes to staff examination projects and had 

systems in place for scheduling, rotating, and analyzing FCA 

examination staff. 

However, we identified improvements needed in collecting data on 

recruiting, analyzing recruiting efforts, and increasing security over 

certain information collected on potential employees. We also noted 

opportunities for OE to update and document certain policies and 

procedures on scheduling and rotating examination staff and noted 

concerns with the collection and storage of data on former employees.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background.................................................................................................................................... 1

Farm Credit Administration................................................................................................................................ 1

Office of Examination........................................................................................................................................... 1

Examination Program........................................................................................................................................... 1

Assignment Processes.......................................................................................................................................... 2

Prior Office of Inspector General Reports .................................................................................................... 3

Objective, Scope, and Methodology ........................................................................................... 3

Objective ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Scope.......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Methodology........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Audit Results.................................................................................................................................. 5

Recruiting....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

OIG Survey................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Recruiting Data Sets ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Root Causes ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 11

FCA Response....................................................................................................................................................... 11

OIG Response....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Staffing ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Examiner Rotation .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Scheduling............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Attrition Data........................................................................................................................................................ 13

Root Causes ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 15

FCA Response....................................................................................................................................................... 15

OIG Response....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Management Comments ............................................................................................................ 16

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX A-SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................. 19

Question 1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

Question 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 20

Question 3 ............................................................................................................................................................. 21

Question 4 ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Question 5 ............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Question 6 ............................................................................................................................................................. 24

Question 7 ............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Question 8 ............................................................................................................................................................. 26

Question 9 ............................................................................................................................................................. 27

Question 10........................................................................................................................................................... 28

Question 11........................................................................................................................................................... 29

Question 12........................................................................................................................................................... 30

Question 13........................................................................................................................................................... 31
1 

BACKGROUND

Farm Credit Administration

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) is an independent federal agency responsible for 

regulating, examining, and supervising the Farm Credit System (System). The Agency is 

responsible for ensuring that all System institutions are safe, sound, and dependable sources of 

credit and related services for all creditworthy and eligible persons in agriculture and rural 

America. 

Office of Examination

FCA’s Office of Examination (OE) is responsible for examining and supervising System institutions 

in accordance with the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, and applicable regulations. OE has 

oversight responsibility for the System’s 60 agricultural credit associations, 4 banks, 1 federal land 

credit association, and 6 service corporations.1

 As noted in FCA’s Board Policy Statement 53, 

Examination Philosophy, the FCA Board directs the maintenance of a risk-based approach to 

oversight and examination, and OE must maintain staff resources to fulfill the Agency’s mission. 

Examiners are an essential link with System institutions through ongoing institution oversight, 

examinations, meetings with boards and management, and reports and correspondence. 

OE is divided into the following divisions:

• Association Examination Division – East

• Association Examination Division – West

• Bank Examination Division

• Staff Development Division (SDD)

• Examination Guidance Division

• Risk Supervision Division

OE accounts for about half of the total Agency personnel. OE personnel are assigned to the five 

FCA locations and a few are assigned to permanent flexiplace. Over the last four years, on average, 

OE planned to hire 17 examination staff per year and actually hired about 19 per year. For the 

same period, OE lost, on average, about 21 staff each year through attrition, including retirements. 

Currently, OE identifies about 15 percent of its workforce as retirement eligible through the end 

of fiscal year (FY) 2022. 

Examination Program 

FCA Board Policy Statement 53, Examination Philosophy, provides that the examination program 

must maintain adequately trained examiners who understand the unique risks and opportunities 

of agriculture; an appropriate number of examiners with regulatory and financial industry 

experience and skills; and examination staff that can communicate and work effectively with 

1 As of January 1, 2023. 
2 

System institutions to ensure the institutions remain safe and sound and able to fulfill their public 

policy purpose. 

To fill examination positions, OE has established a recruiting program. Within OE, SDD has primary 

responsibility for recruiting efforts. Specifically, SDD develops recruiting strategies, schedules 

recruiting events, and identifies staff to participate in recruiting activities. Recruiting events 

primarily consist of campus events and career fairs, and recruiters are tasked with educating 

potential candidates about the Agency and ensuring that the candidates know where to find FCA 

job announcements.

Once recruiting and hiring has been completed, examination staff generally enter the 

commissioning program. A commission is a designation that is obtained after achievement and 

demonstration of OE-required competencies and successful performance on the commissioning 

test. Associate examiners spend multiple years in the commissioning program completing 

coursework, working on examinations, and taking evaluations. Associate examiners are assigned 

to SDD until they are promoted to another examination division for further development. OE also 

has processes to commission mid-career hires with experience gained from work outside of FCA. 

FCA hires non-commissioned mid-career examiners that may go through the commissioning 

program. FCA also hires commissioned mid-career examiners from other regulatory agencies and 

grants them an FCA commission after confirming their ability to lead FCA examinations. As of 

October 2022, OE identified 173 employees in the office, 85 of whom were commissioned 

examiners. 

Assignment Processes 

OE assignment processes are designed to ensure that the right resources are utilized to complete 

oversight work. Key assignments for examinations include the examiner-in-charge (EIC) and 

reviewing official. OE tracks and monitors various factors for these assignments, including the 

number of examination cycles in the position; number of assigned institutions; time zone 

differences between the staff and institution; and supervision level of assigned institutions. 

Regular planning meetings are conducted to assess staff assignments and review priorities and 

risks.

Once key positions are assigned, examinations are staffed with needed resources. In 2019, the 

Office of Information Technology (OIT) developed a web-based scheduling tool for OE to provide 

real-time information about staffing availability. The tool allows schedulers to view and sort by 

institution, person, position, and other factors to identify and schedule appropriate resources. The 

web-based tool also incorporates approvals and notifications to quickly identify the status of 

staffing assignments. OE prioritizes examination activities based on statutory compliance dates 

and institution risk in determining the order in which staff are scheduled. 

To support effective oversight, OE rotates certain examination staff. This process supports 

examiner independence and the Agency’s role as an arm’s-length regulator. OE’s general process 

is to rotate the EIC at least every three examination cycles. By statute, each institution must be 

examined by FCA no less than once during each 18-month period. Officials stated that reviewing 
3 

officials are also rotated but may be assigned to an institution for more than three examination 

cycles to support continuity and streamline oversight. 

Prior Office of Inspector General Reports 

The FCA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued previous reports relating to examination staffing 

processes. 

• FCA OIG completed an audit, Farm Credit Administration’s Commissioning Program, 

on March 31, 2015. The objective of the audit was to determine whether FCA was 

effectively managing the commissioning program. The audit identified opportunities to 

improve cost monitoring, streamline testing and evaluation, improve contractor oversight, 

reduce staffing shortfalls, and provide additional feedback to candidates. There were nine 

recommendations made in the report. All recommendations were closed by FCA by June 

2017.

• FCA OIG completed an audit, Human Capital Planning at the Farm Credit 

Administration, on February 29, 2016. The objectives of this audit were to assess the 

adequacy of the Agency’s human capital planning and the effectiveness of its 

implementation. The audit focused on three areas of human capital planning: key person

dependencies and succession planning, employee hiring and separation, and workplace 

diversity and inclusion. The audit found that, overall, the FCA had an adequate human 

capital strategy, however, there were opportunities to improve the human capital plan

implementation and processes. In response to the audit, the Agency agreed to implement 

11 actions to improve the human capital planning process. All recommendations were 

closed by FCA by the end of September 2016.

• FCA OIG completed an audit, Farm Credit Administration’s Employee Separation 

Process, on February 9, 2021. The objective of the audit was to determine whether FCA 

has an efficient and effective process for separating employees. The audit found that while 

the Agency had established policies and procedures, established access controls for its exit 

questionnaire data, and performed an analysis in 2019 using exit survey data, there were 

opportunities to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the separating process. 

The audit identified improvements that needed to be made to the Personnel Action Report 

process, the exit survey and interview process, and checkout processes. There were six 

recommendations made to the Office of Agency Services (OAS). All recommendations 

were closed by FCA by the end of March 2021.

OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

Objective 

The objective of this audit was to evaluate FCA’s examination staffing processes. We performed 

this audit at FCA’s headquarters in McLean, Virginia from July through November 2022. 
4 

Scope

The scope of the audit was limited to FCA’s examiner staffing from January 1, 2019, through June 

30, 2022.

Methodology

We took the following steps to accomplish the objective: 

• Identified and reviewed related laws, regulations, and other background information 

applicable to the objective;

• Identified and reviewed applicable internal FCA policies and procedures;

• Reviewed prior FCA OIG and other external reviews related to the audit objective;

• Interviewed OE, OIT, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion, and OAS 

personnel on examiner recruiting and staffing, the FCA examiner application processes, 

timekeeping processes, and privacy information;

• Reviewed the FY 2023 OE Operating Plan for information on recruiting and staffing; and

• Reviewed the FCA Management Control Plan for FYs 2022-2026 and OE internal control 

reviews applicable to the audit objective.

Tests Performed

 Requested and reviewed the draft recruiting handbook and the information sent to 

recruiters for the fall 2022 recruiting cycle;

 Reviewed and summarized OE examiner recruiting schedules for 2019, 2020, and 2021. We 

also reviewed the completed and planned activities for 2022;

 Requested and reviewed OE budgeting and time code information for financial and 

staffing resources spent on recruiting activities for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. We also 

requested and reviewed Agency time code reports for the July 2019 through June 2022 

period for project code 3164 (Staffing and Job Evaluation) to analyze the use of the code 

by OE and other offices within the Agency;

 Reviewed a previously issued job announcement for an examiner position. We analyzed 

the questions listed in the April 2022 examiner job announcement to determine if any 

recruiting information was tracked in the announcement;

 Requested and reviewed staffing tools for the Association Examination Division, including 

the planning assignments spreadsheet, scheduling and milestone spreadsheet, and 

information incorporated in the tools; 

 Received access to the web-based scheduling tool and reviewed inputs in the tool and the 

scheduler guide;
5 

 Requested and reviewed OE staffing contingency plans and documentation on 

coordination with other offices that may require examination staff support;

 Determined EIC assignments for the last three cycles using the Agency’s internal 

documentation system and determined whether EICs were rotated after three cycles; 

 Reviewed the internal personnel action report from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2022, 

and OE’s attrition dashboard and analyzed trends. Because we used judgmental factors in 

selecting OE’s examination statistics, we cannot project this sample to the population; and,

 Developed and distributed a survey to FCA examination staff with ten or less years of 

experience at FCA. We reviewed two internal employee systems to develop a list of all 

active OE examiners under the 0570 job series2 and sorted the list by tenure for those that 

have been with FCA over the last ten years, as of September 8, 2022. We included all active 

OE examiners, but we did not include one OE administrative support staff member in our 

survey. We issued the survey to the 97 examiners that met our criteria, and 91 of the 97 

recipients completed the survey, resulting in a 94 percent response rate. Because of the 

response rate, we deemed the results reliable and valid. We analyzed the survey results, 

which can be found in the Appendix of this report. Because we used judgmental factors in 

selecting our sample, the survey results cannot be projected to the population. 

Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards

We conducted this audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objective. 

We reviewed internal controls identified as significant to the audit objective and did not identify 

any material control weaknesses. We designed audit procedures to assess internal controls to the 

extent necessary to address our objective. Because our review was limited, it would not necessarily 

have disclosed all internal control deficiencies that may have existed at the time of our audit. We 

also assessed the reliability of data relevant to our audit objective and determined that the data 

was sufficiently reliable. 

We considered the risk of fraud and abuse during our audit, and nothing came to our attention 

to indicate fraud or abuse was occurring.

AUDIT RESULTS

We evaluated FCA’s examination staffing processes and found that the Agency has made efforts 

to develop and implement processes aimed to strengthen examiner staffing. We found that the 

Agency devoted resources, and appropriately budgeted for, examination staff recruiting efforts. 

2 The 0570 job series is the financial institution examining series.
6 

The Agency also implemented a variety of tools and processes to staff examination projects, and

developed processes for scheduling, rotating, and retaining FCA examination staff. However, we 

identified opportunities for improvement in examiner recruiting, scheduling, and staffing 

processes. 

Recruiting

We determined that FCA is allocating resources to examiner recruiting efforts, but improvements 

need to be made in collecting recruiting information, analyzing recruiting efforts, and securing 

data collected in the recruiting process. 

Recruiting Programs

Recruiting new examiner talent remains a focus area for OE, given higher-than-expected attrition 

levels and a workforce with a significant number of senior managers and experienced examiners 

eligible to retire in the near future. OE’s SDD leads the efforts for examiner recruiting and staffing. 

Over the last four years, on average, OE hired about 19 examination staff per year. OE hires more 

new staff each year than any other office at FCA.

In order to find and attract highly qualified applicants through targeted outreach, OE established 

two recruiting programs for entry-level examiners, the ambassador and campus recruiting 

programs. The recruiting efforts are primarily documented in a draft recruiting handbook. The 

handbook describes the two types of recruiting efforts: 

Ambassadors’ responsibilities include conducting in-person or virtual outreach activities; building 

and maintaining relationships with university career centers, counselors, and faculty; and 

establishing relationships with diverse student groups and organizations. Campus recruiters’ 

responsibilities include representing the Agency at career fairs, highlighting the Agency as an 

employer of choice, educating and informing applicants about the Agency and application 

process; and following up and encouraging applicants to apply to positions. Ambassadors and 

campus recruiters are selected on a volunteer basis. OE personnel that manage the recruiting 

program also consider the examiner’s alumni status at colleges and universities.

Ambassadors

Manage the university relationship to 

attract hard-to-find passive candidates 

by building relationships at an assigned 

university and developing awareness of 

the Agency.

Campus Recruiters

Manage the career and internship fair 

event, and provide individual students 

additional information about the 

Agency, application process, and 

highlight the Agency as an employer of 

choice.
7 

Recruiting Time Codes and Tracking Resources for Recruiting Activities

OE primarily uses existing examiner staff to recruit for new examiner positions. The Agency

generally sends 2 to 3 people to recruit at each location for campus recruiting. OE attends about 

20 events each year, with about half in the fall and the other half in the spring. In addition, there 

are 21 universities currently on the ambassador program listing. Ambassadors may also go to the 

universities for recruiting activities. 

OE allocates important staff time and financial resources to recruiting activities. Personnel 

assigned to recruiting responsibilities are directed to charge time to project code 3164, Staffing 

and Job Evaluation, in the FCA timekeeping system when working on recruiting activities. OE tracks 

resources allocated to these activities with staff days allocated to the code and travel expenses 

for staff. OE’s summaries show that for FY 2019 recruiting efforts, 305 staff days were planned and 

242 actual days were used, with travel expenses totaling $31,370. The summary for FY 2020 

showed that 235 staff days were planned, and 248 actual days were used, with travel expenses 

totaling $30,095. For FY 2021, 270 staff days were planned and 164 actual days were used with $0 

in travel expenses.3 For the years reviewed, on average, the number of staff days allocated to 

recruiting activities was about 0.5 percent of total OE activities. 

OE officials noted that they consider recruiting activities a good development tool for examination 

staff and do not view the amount allocated to recruiting activities as significant to OE operations. 

OE officials also noted they do not pull resources away from examination work to accomplish 

recruiting activities.

While OE plans for and allocates resources to examiner recruiting efforts, there appears to be a 

lack of a cost/benefit analysis on whether the efforts and strategies are effective. When asked 

about analyses performed on recruiting efforts, Agency personnel stated there is limited 

information captured to analyze recruiting efforts. 

OIG Survey

To better understand examiner recruiting and staffing efforts and to solicit examination staff 

feedback, the OIG designed a survey to issue to examiner staff with ten or less years of experience 

at FCA. The survey contained 13 questions and was issued on September 12, 2022, to 97 recipients. 

91 of the 97 recipients completed the survey, resulting in a 94 percent response rate. Given the 

response rate of the survey, the respondents’ answers account for almost all of the examination 

personnel that have been hired within the last ten years and remain at the Agency. 

There were several questions on the survey relating to the recruiting process. The responses to 

those questions may be helpful to OE recruiting personnel in understanding the successes of the 

recruiting efforts from the responses of those examination personnel hired over the last ten years. 

The 10-year hiring period covered by the survey includes the years impacted by the COVID-19 

pandemic when travel and campus recruiting activities were limited. Furthermore, while the 

3 The COVID-19 pandemic curtailed all travel in FY 2021 and impacted other campus recruiting efforts in 

FYs 2020 and 2021.
8 

Agency conducts recruiting activities at universities, it also hires experienced examination staff. 

These hires are generally not part of campus recruiting activities conducted by the Agency. 

The questions below are excerpts from the survey relating to recruiting efforts, and the full survey 

results can be found in Appendix A.

• Question 3: What college/university did you attend? The OIG asked respondents about 

the college or university they attended to establish if there was a pattern in hiring 

examination staff from certain universities. The responses showed 14 schools 

accounted for over half (53 percent) of the total entries listed by examination staff 

hired over the last ten years. Further, the top three listed schools accounted for about 

20 percent of the entries listed by examiners. 

• Question 4: Before you were hired at FCA, how did you find out about the job? The 

OIG asked survey respondents about how they found out about the job at FCA before 

they were hired. Of the choices, 46 percent of respondents stated that they searched 

on USAJobs for the job. Another 11 percent knew someone at the Agency. The 

remaining 23 respondents, or 25 percent of the total, stated they found out about the 

job at a career fair or university event. This timeframe includes recruiting activities that 

were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Question 5: Which of the following are true about your recruiting process at FCA? From 

a list, respondents were asked to select all that apply about their recruiting process. 

Overall, the feedback was positive about how much personnel knew about the position 

and its requirements. The most selected answer from respondents was that they had 

learned about FCA during the recruiting process. The second most selected answer 

was that they understood the travel requirements for the job. Overall, respondents 

stated they understood crucial pieces of the job during the recruiting process with 56 

respondents selecting they understood the skill sets needed for the job, 47 

respondents selecting they had learned about the Farm Credit System, and 44 

respondents selecting they understood what an examiner does and understood the 

hiring process. 

• Question 6: How would you rate the examiner recruiting process? We asked this 

question to understand whether current examiners who we surveyed believe the 

recruiting process needs improvement. The survey asked respondents to select a 

response on a scale from the following: 1 (ineffective), 2 (needs improvement), 3 

(acceptable), 4 (good), and 5 (outstanding). The respondents’ ratings averaged to 3.43, 

indicating the respondents believe the examiner recruiting process was between 

acceptable and good.

• Question 7: If you attended a hiring event before being hired, what type of event did 

you attend where FCA was present? We asked this question to help analyze the 

effectiveness of recruiting efforts. 59 respondents, or about 65 percent of those 

surveyed, stated they did not attend events where FCA was present. This statistic 

indicates that a majority of examiners found out about FCA from something other than 

a hiring event where FCA was present. Of the remaining 32 respondents, 11 
9 

respondents stated they attended an agricultural career fair or event where FCA was 

present, 10 respondents stated they attended a business career fair or event where 

FCA was present, 7 respondents stated they attended a general career fair or event 

where FCA was present, and 1 respondent stated they attended a university 

presentation where FCA was present. Three total respondents stated other options 

including that they could not remember, did not attend any events, or attended many 

events with no FCA presence. As previously noted, campus recruiting activities were 

impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the data set includes examiners that 

may have been mid-career hires. These examiners generally would not be recruited 

through campus recruiting efforts. 

While there are many variables that factor into the recruiting and hiring process, understanding 

how people are finding out about FCA positions and whether the Agency’s current efforts are 

working are important to determine whether certain recruiting efforts and costs are worth the 

benefits. See complete survey results at Appendix A for detailed responses to the survey.

Recruiting Data Sets 

We identified concerns with FCA’s collection and storage of certain recruiting data. As part of its 

recruiting process, OE utilized a quick response (QR) code in its recruiting materials. Potential 

applicants were asked to scan the code and enter their information. The information was then 

stored in a listing on OE’s internal recruiting site. Over the course of this audit, OE was in the 

process of changing this process. In February 2022, FCA’s OIT approved a change request from 

OE and updated the QR code form and interface and added a Privacy Act Statement; however, 

this was a temporary solution. In August 2022, OE officials stated because the recruiting QR code 

collected personally identifiable information, they were moving away from using the QR code to 

a different system that allowed individuals to self-register their email addresses at career fairs and 

that could be used to communicate information on job announcements. 

Based on our review of the recruiting site, it appeared that OE did not have a process to restrict 

access to only those with a need for the information or purge unneeded information from the 

recruiting site that had collected personally identifiable information from the QR code. The 

recruiting site contained information on candidates including: first name, last name, email address, 

career fair visited, date created, date of notice sent, graduation date, onsite interview conducted, 

and comments. Many of these items include personally identifiable information for individuals 

who are not FCA employees. The site stored this information on potential candidates for multiple 

years. Just from February 2020 to September 2022, more than 100 potential candidates’ 

information was stored on the site. 

The OIG requested access listings for the recruiting site. OIT provided the OIG with a listing 

showing all individuals and groups that had access to the recruiting data. All personnel in three 

different recruiter groups, including personnel from various FCA offices, were on the access listing

(four people in one group, 51 people in a second group, and 75 people in a third group). 
10

On August 31, 2022, the OIG notified officials that the QR code was still active and routing to the 

old online form, not the new system. Officials stated that the same QR code would be used but it 

would direct to the new system. We noted, as of October 31, 2022, the last entry in the online 

listing that had been routed to the old online form from the QR code was dated September 28, 

2022. 

On September 23, 2022, OE requested removal of all QR code recruiting records created prior to 

September 1, 2021. On the same day, OIT requested removal of the old recruiting form on the 

FCA website, removal of corresponding data created before September 1, 2021, and that the 

existing list be changed to read-only for non-administrator use. However, the site still contained

personally identifiable information for the potential candidates going back to September 2021. 

OIT stated that the plan was to remove the remaining data after a year had passed.

Root Causes

Several root causes contributed to the identified opportunities to improve recruiting efforts. From 

the examiner job application process, the Agency is not soliciting any data on how applicants are 

finding out about examiner positions, which makes analyzing recruiting efforts difficult. OAS 

provided an example of a job announcement, which was for an examiner position and was posted 

in April 2022 on USAJobs. The example announcement did not include a question on how the

applicant found out about the job. OAS also provided a copy of the job questionnaire that 

contained 37 questions, but none relating to recruiting activities from which the applicants may 

have learned about the job. Agency personnel noted that when applying in USAJobs, applicants 

are directed to an FCA-specific portion of the application, so the Agency could easily add a 

question on how the applicant found out about the announcement. 

There is also no dedicated time code for OE recruiting. Staff use project code 3164, Staffing and 

Job Evaluation, for recruiting. However, this code is used Agency-wide for a variety of activities. 

The Agency’s description of the project code states, “recruiting, hiring, relocating staff, merit 

promotion, termination, job analysis, preparation of position descriptions and performing desk 

audits.” The Agency’s timekeeping system shows that based on complete pay periods between

July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2022, 11,190 hours (or 1,399 days) were charged to time code 3164 by 

eight different offices. OE had a total of 5,003 hours (or 625 days) charged to the code for the 

three-year period. A dedicated time code for recruiting efforts in OE would allow OE to better 

analyze the costs and benefits of its recruiting efforts. 

The Agency had not established structured ways to analyze recruiting efforts. OE personnel 

confirmed that while they review staffing needs and the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, they 

are not analyzing the recruiting efforts to see what may or may not be working. While OE had 

created a draft recruiting handbook, information such as what data will be tracked and analyzed 

is not documented. As another example, when selecting locations for recruiting, OE staff stated 

the selections are based on available majors, programs, and universities where FCA had previous 

success at recruiting; however, this selection process is not documented. 
11

Lastly, there have been numerous changes in how the Agency is collecting and storing potential 

candidate information. Because of these changes, the Agency has not documented how legacy 

data in the old system is being used, why the Agency needs to keep the information, and how the 

information will be secured. While the Agency removed information prior to 2021, it remained a 

concern that the Agency was storing personally identifiable information for potential candidates.

Impact 

Because of the importance of hiring examiners and the resources that OE devotes to recruiting 

efforts, it is vital to capture data on what recruiting efforts may or may not be working. While it is 

important to attract and hire new talent, understanding the effectiveness of the Agency’s efforts 

and pivoting to new approaches may be necessary to efficiently meet hiring needs. It is also 

important that the Agency understands the risks associated with storage of information on nonemployees, especially if this information is not needed.

Recommendations

To enhance the Agency’s recruiting efforts:

1. The Office of Inspector General recommends the Office of Examination coordinate with 

applicable offices to gather information on how applicants found out about the FCA 

announcement through the application process.

2. The Office of Inspector General recommends the Office of Examination evaluate the 

implementation of a project code specific to its recruiting to be able to more efficiently 

track resources utilized during recruiting efforts and to better analyze the costs and 

benefits of its recruiting efforts. 

3. The Office of Inspector General recommends the Office of Examination document and 

implement recruiting processes in the recruiting handbook or other documented policies 

and procedures. 

4. The Office of Inspector General recommends the Office of Examination document the 

plans to remove legacy quick response code recruiting data and implement immediate 

steps to reduce access to the information until the data is removed.

FCA Response

Management agreed with the recommendations. Management stated it will work with OAS to 

formalize information gathered during the application process and analyze the information on an 

annual basis to determine changes needed in the recruiting process. Management stated that it 

would also work with other offices to determine whether to expand project codes for recruiting. 

Management stated it is finalizing the recruiting handbook to document the recruiting process. 

Management also removed legacy recruiting data and implemented a new process for collecting 

contact information through the recruiting QR code. 

Management estimated the actions would be completed by December 2023.
12

OIG Response

The OIG finds the actions responsive to our recommendations. Due to the corrective actions 

implemented during the course of our audit, we consider recommendation 4 closed. OE provided 

formal comments to the report that can be found in the Management Comments section of the 

report.

Staffing

We found the Agency utilized various tools and datasets to plan examination assignments. We 

also found that OE had developed a staffing contingency plan to ensure preparedness and analyze 

potential staffing needs in times of heightened risks and adverse conditions. However, we noted 

several opportunities to improve documentation and data collection related to staffing. 

Examiner Rotation

Although OE generally rotates EICs at least every three consecutive examination cycles, the 

rotation policy is not documented. Officials stated that rotation had been used for many years to 

gain a fresh perspective during examinations. They stated that the policy was generally to rotate 

the EIC at least every three examination cycles, which would generally be after about 4.5 years.4

In the Bank Examination Division, officials stated that EICs are sometimes rotated less frequently 

because of multiple specialists working on an examination, the time it takes to establish 

relationships, and the specialized knowledge needed for their oversight work. OE tracks and 

analyzes the number of consecutive times an EIC issues a report of examination for each 

institution, along with other institution and staffing information, to plan staffing assignments. 

We tested rotation by reviewing EIC assignments for the last three examination cycles. We used 

information in the Agency’s internal documentation system and reports of examination to 

determine EIC assignments. If the EIC was the same for three consecutive cycles, we reviewed the 

EIC for an additional cycle and OE’s planning documents to assess whether examiners were 

rotated. Our testing revealed EICs were rotated every three examination cycles for all but two 

institutions. These institutions were assigned to the Bank Examination Division, which was in line 

with the rotation guidelines described by OE officials. 

Scheduling 

Although OE developed a robust scheduling process, it was not fully documented. OE conducts 

regular planning meetings to assign key staff, including EICs, assistant EICs, and reviewing officials. 

Various factors are considered in making key staff assignments. In addition to rotation and the 

number of consecutive assigned examination cycles, factors include institution risks; an examiner’s 

number of assignments; examiner skill sets and experience; and geographic location and time 

4 Section 5.19 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, states that “[e]ach institution of the System shall 

be examined by [FCA] examiners at such time as the Board may determine, but in no event less than once 

during each 18-month period.”
13

zone differences. Once key staff are assigned, supervisors use a web-based tool to schedule staff 

for examination activities. 

OE’s web-based scheduling tool was developed by OIT to provide streamlined, real-time 

scheduling information. The tool allows supervisors to determine staff scheduling availability and 

sort by different factors, including field office location, position, and specialization. OE Directive 

48, Scheduling, documents guidance on scheduling examinations and projects. However, the 

directive does not reference the web-based scheduling tool and includes outdated roles and 

responsibilities for division schedulers.

Attrition Data

We identified concerns with FCA’s collection and storage of certain attrition data. In 2022, OE 

developed an attrition dashboard and implemented access controls to a limited number of 

personnel. The dashboard provides on-demand information on OE staffing levels, attrition, 

staffing targets, staffing gaps, and retirement eligibility. The dashboard replaced manual 

processes to more effectively monitor staff resources to support OE reporting and Agency 

retention initiatives. In October 2022, the dashboard reported: 

Office of Examination Staff by Position 

Active OE 

Employees

Retirement 

Eligible 

Through 2026

Attrition of 

Commissioned

Examiners

Total 

Attrition5 

Administrative Support 5 1

Analysts 2 2

FCA Examiners 41 6 7 7

Management 8 6 2

Non-Supervisory Senior Examiners 6 2 1 1

Program/Portfolio Managers 9 5 1 1

Specialists 31 13 6 9

Supervisory Senior Examiners 15 2

Tier 1 Associate Examiners 25 3

Tier 2 Associate Examiners 31 5

Total 173 37 15 28

OE’s tracking of examiner staffing highlights staffing needs, especially for examiner and specialist 

positions. Further, the loss of commissioned staff can diminish investments in training and create 

gaps in knowledge and experience, which should continue to be monitored and addressed. 

5 Total attrition for October 2021 to October 2022.
14

The attrition dashboard also includes additional employee information to further analyze human 

capital trends. Specifically, the dashboard includes examiner name, commissioned status, grade 

level, division, location, position, and tenure with the Agency. Additional supplemental data is 

incorporated in the dashboard when an employee leaves OE. Supplemental attrition data is 

collected by supervisors and added to the database, if provided. The following information was 

incorporated in the dashboard for separated employees:

• Type of position change (for example, resignation, transfer, or retirement);

• Cause of separation (for example, commercial position, different government position, 

Farm Credit System position, or personal reasons);

• Whether the separation is for a job with higher pay; and,

• Whether the separation is for a flexiplace job.

Aggregate totals in the dashboard can be expanded to identify the specific employees and 

associated employee data in the selected category. While we understand how certain information 

can be helpful in understanding attrition, the collection and storage methods on former 

employees needs to be documented and approved in coordination with other offices to ensure 

that such data is properly protected and retained.

Root Causes

Several root causes contributed to identified opportunities to improve rotation, scheduling, and 

staffing. Although our testing revealed rotation was taking place, OE’s rotation policy had not 

been documented. Officials stated that rotation had been in place for a very long time, with 

rotation practices varying between the Association Examination Division and Bank Examination 

Division. However, this control was not documented in policies and procedures. Officials stated 

that they were considering addressing rotation in OE Directive 48 on scheduling, which was last 

updated in November 2012. Because it had not been updated in ten years, the directive also did 

not fully address OE’s current scheduling processes. Implementation of the web-based scheduling 

tool resulted in different roles, responsibilities, and processes for scheduling that could be 

included in an updated directive.

In addition, development of the attrition dashboard was reviewed and approved through OIT; 

however, the review did not address supplemental attrition data. OIT reviewed the dashboard to 

consider security, privacy, and records retention risks, and approved the project in April 2022. 

OIT’s review stated that the dashboard would include data that is already available to select OE 

staff. However, the review did not address supplemental data collected by supervisors on 

separating employees’ new employer, pay, and workplace arrangements. We also noted that 

supplemental attrition data was not collected through a standardized exit questionnaire, and it is 

questionable whether the employees exiting the Agency even knew that the information on their 

activities was being collected. This process presents additional risks and may not convey how 

supplemental attrition data is being used, stored, and safeguarded by the Agency. 
15

Impact 

Scheduling practices and staffing data are essential to maintaining an effective oversight program. 

Current policies and procedures support consistent application of control activities and help 

ensure that agreed-upon processes are utilized. Further, evaluating the full scope of data in the 

attrition dashboard ensures necessary controls are considered as well as compliance with 

applicable requirements for collection and storage. 

Recommendations

To improve staffing documentation and data: 

5. The Office of Inspector General recommends the Office of Examination document the 

examiner rotation policies.

6. The Office of Inspector General recommends the Office of Examination update Directive 

48, Scheduling, to reflect current processes.

7. The Office of Inspector General recommends the Office of Examination document what 

information is collected, stored, and maintained on former employees and consider 

privacy, security, and records retention requirements in coordination with other applicable 

offices. 

FCA Response

Management agreed with the recommendations. Management stated they would document 

examiner rotation policies and update the OE Directive on scheduling. Lastly, management stated 

they would coordinate with other FCA offices to consider privacy, security, and records retention 

requirements for supplemental attrition data on former employees.

Management estimated the actions would be completed by December 2023.

OIG Response

The OIG finds the actions responsive to our recommendations. OE provided formal comments to 

the report that can be found in the Management Comments section of the report. 

Management waived an exit conference.
16

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
17
18

ACRONYMS

EIC Examiner-in-Charge

FCA or Agency Farm Credit Administration

FCS or System Farm Credit System

FY fiscal year

OAS Office of Agency Services

OE Office of Examination

OIG Office of Inspector General

OIT Office of Information Technology

QR quick response 

SDD Staff Development Division
19

APPENDIX A-SURVEY RESULTS

The OIG designed a survey for current examination staff with ten or less years of experience at 

FCA. The survey covered FCA’s recruiting process and retention efforts. The OIG issued the survey 

to 97 examiners, with 91 of the 97 recipients completing the survey, resulting in a 94 percent 

response rate. The survey included 13 questions, which included a question at the end to leave 

comments on FCA’s recruiting process or retention efforts. The subsequent information 

summarizes the results of the survey from the 91 respondents. 

The 10-year hiring period covered by the survey includes the years impacted by the COVID-19 

pandemic when travel and campus recruiting activities were limited. Furthermore, while the 

Agency conducts recruiting activities at universities, it also hires experienced examination staff. 

These hires are generally not part of campus recruiting activities conducted by the Agency. 

Question 1

How many years have you worked at FCA? 

In order to establish background information on respondents for the survey, the OIG asked how 

long they have worked at FCA. The largest number of respondents have worked at FCA 0-2 years 

(43 of 91 responses). 21 of the 91 respondents stated they have worked at FCA for 3-5 years, and 

27 respondents stated they have worked at FCA for 6-10 years. 

43

21

27

How many years have you worked at FCA?

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years
20

Question 2 

How many years of work experience did you have before starting at FCA? 

For additional background information, the OIG asked respondents about their previous work 

experience. This helped establish how many of the respondents may be considered mid-career 

personnel. The largest portion of respondents, 54 of the 91 respondents, stated they had 0-2 years 

of work experience before starting at FCA. Of the remaining respondents, 13 stated they had 3-5 

years of work experience, 8 respondents stated they had 6-10 years of work experience, and 16 

respondents stated they had more than 10 years of work experience before starting at FCA. 

54

13

8

16

How many years of work experience did you have 

before starting at FCA?

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

More than 10 years
21

Question 3 

What college/university did you attend? 

The OIG asked respondents about the college or university they attended in order to establish if 

there was a pattern in hiring examination staff from certain universities. This information could 

also be useful to understand if recruiting efforts in certain areas were successful or not. Out of the 

91 respondents, 90 listed their college/university and one omitted a response. Seven respondents 

listed more than one school and some differentiated undergraduate and graduate programs. In 

total, respondents listed 61 different schools. Most universities and colleges were only listed once; 

however, the chart below shows 14 schools that had more than one entry and accounted for over 

half (53 percent) of the total entries. Of note, the top three listed schools account for 19 entries 

from respondents and are all located close to FCA field offices. 

University/College Listed by Respondents Total Entries 

Colorado State University 8

University of Wisconsin - River Falls 6

University of Minnesota 5

Iowa State University 4

Texas A&M University 4

Texas Tech University 4

New Mexico State University 3

University of Texas at Dallas 3

Virginia Tech University 3

California State University, Sacramento 3

Clemson University 2

University of Maryland 2

University of Minnesota Crookston 2

University of North Dakota 2
22

Question 4 

Before you were hired at FCA, how did you find out about the job?

The OIG asked survey respondents how they found out about the job at FCA before they were 

hired. Of the choices, 42 of the 91 respondents, or 46 percent, selected that they searched on 

USAJobs for the job. Of the 91 respondents, 19, or 21 percent of total respondents, stated they 

found out about the job at a career fair. For the remaining 30 respondents, 10 respondents stated 

they knew someone that worked at the Agency, 4 respondents stated there was another job site 

advertisement, 4 stated there was a university event, 2 stated there was an outreach email, 2 stated 

they had an alumni communication, and 8 selected “other.” Of note, although social media was 

an option, no respondents selected this choice. The 10-year hiring period covered by the survey 

includes the years impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic when travel and campus recruiting 

activities were limited. Furthermore, while the Agency conducts recruiting activities at universities, 

it also hires experienced examination staff. These hires are generally not part of campus recruiting 

activities conducted by the Agency. 

2, 2%

19, 21%

10, 11%

4, 5%

2, 2%

4, 4%

42, 46%

8, 9%

Before you were hired at FCA, how did you find 

out about the job? 

Alumni communication

Career fair

I knew someone that

worked at the Agency

Other job site

advertisement

Outreach email

University event

USAJobs search

Other
23

Question 5 

Which of the following are true about your recruiting process at FCA (respondents were 

asked to select all that apply)? 

The OIG asked respondents about their recruiting process at FCA. From a list, respondents were 

asked to select all that apply. The most selected answer from respondents was that they had 

learned about FCA during the recruiting process. The next most selected answer was that they 

understood the travel requirements for the job. Overall, respondents stated they understood 

crucial pieces of the job during the recruiting process with 56 respondents selecting they 

understood the skill sets needed for the job, 47 respondents selecting they had learned about the 

Farm Credit System, and 44 respondents selecting they understood what an examiner does and 

understood the hiring process. 

5

6

44

44

47

56

72

74

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

None of the above

I don't remember

I understood the hiring process

I understood what an examiner does

I learned about the Farm Credit System

I understood the skill sets needed for the job

I understood the travel requirements for the job

I learned about FCA

Which of the following are true about your recruiting 

process? 
24

Question 6 

How would you rate the examiner recruiting process? 

The OIG asked respondents to rate the examiner recruiting process. This information could be 

helpful in understanding whether current employees believe the recruiting process needs to be 

improved. Respondents were asked to select a response on a scale from the following: 1 

(ineffective), 2 (needs improvement), 3 (acceptable), 4 (good), and 5 (outstanding). The 

respondents’ ratings averaged to 3.43, indicating the respondents believe the examiner recruiting 

process was between acceptable and good. 

Inffective

Needs 

Improvement Acceptable Good Outstanding

1 2 3 4 5 

3.43 
25

Question 7 

If you attended a hiring event before being hired, what type of event did you attend 

where FCA was present?

The OIG asked respondents about their attendance at hiring events where FCA was present before 

being hired. This information could be helpful in analyzing recruiting efforts and whether career 

fairs are a good use of resources. For example, 59 respondents, or about 65 percent, stated they 

did not attend events where FCA was present. This may indicate a need to analyze recruiting 

efforts in this area because most of the examiners did not attend hiring events where FCA was 

present. Of the remaining 32 respondents, 11 respondents stated they attended an agricultural 

career fair or event where FCA was present, 10 respondents stated they attended a business career 

fair or event where FCA was present, 7 respondents stated they attended a general career fair or 

event where FCA was present, and 1 respondent stated they attended a university presentation

where FCA was present. Three total respondents stated they cannot remember, did not attend 

any events, or attended many events, but FCA did not attend those events. The 10-year hiring 

period covered by the survey includes the years impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic when travel 

and campus recruiting activities were limited. Furthermore, while the Agency conducts recruiting 

activities at universities, it also hires experienced examination staff. These hires are generally not

part of campus recruiting activities conducted by the Agency. 

11

10

1

7

1 59 1

1

If you attended a hiring event before being hired, what type of 

event did you attend where FCA was present?

Agricultural career fair or event

Business career fair or event

Can't remember

General career fair or event

I attended many events; however,

FCA was never present.

I did not attend any events.

I did not attend events where FCA

was present

University presentation
26

Question 8 

How much time did you spend completing FCA's application process (please do not 

include interview or interview preparation time)?

To understand the application process, the OIG asked respondents how much time they spent on 

completing FCA’s application process. Respondents were asked to not include interview or 

interview preparation time in their answers. Three answers were almost equal where respondents 

stated 1-2 hours (28 respondents), 3-5 hours (26 respondents), or they did not remember (27 

respondents). Of the remaining respondents, 9 stated the application process took 5-8 hours and 

1 respondent stated less than an hour. Although there was an option for more than 8 hours, no 

respondents selected this answer. 

28

26

9

27

1 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1-2 hours 3-5 hours 5-8 hours I don't remember less than an hour

Number of Responses

Number of hours spent on the application process

How much time did you spend completing FCA's 

application process (please do not include interview or 

interview preparation time)?
27

Inffective/ 

Overly 

Burdensome

Somewhat 

Ineffective Manageable Effective 

Extremely 

Effective

1 2 3 4 5 

3.23 

Question 9 

How would you rate FCA’s hiring assessment during the application process? 

The OIG asked respondents to rate FCA’s hiring assessment that is given during the application 

process. Respondents were asked to select a response on a scale from the following: 1 

(ineffective/overly burdensome), 2 (somewhat ineffective), 3 (manageable), 4 (effective), to 5 

(extremely effective). The respondents’ ratings averaged to 3.23, indicating the respondents 

believe the hiring assessment was manageable but not quite effective or extremely effective.
28

Question 10

What factors influenced your decision to work at FCA? (Select all that apply)? 

In order to understand why respondents wanted to work at FCA, the OIG asked respondents to 

select factors that influenced their decision. Respondents were asked to select all factors that 

applied. The most selected factor was benefits with 75 respondents selecting this factor. The next 

highest area was compensation with 64 respondents selecting this factor. Respondents selected 

travel and office location as the third and fourth most selected factors, respectively. Next, 

respondents selected mission of the Agency, recruitment bonus and training opportunities as the 

other factors that influenced their decision to work at FCA. The least selected item was 

examination work and experience, but this factor had 35 selections, which was significant. In 

addition, 7 respondents selected other and named additional factors such as telework options, 

promotion, schedule, and experience. 

48

35

64

75

56

39

51

38

7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Mission of the Agency

Examination work and experience

Compensation

Benefits

Travel

Recruitment bonus

Office location

Training Opportunities

Other

What factors influenced your decision to work at FCA? 

(Select all that apply)?
29

Question 11

What factors influence your decision to remain at FCA? (Select all that apply) 

To understand why respondents remained at FCA, the OIG asked respondents to select all factors 

that influenced their decision. The most selected factor was benefits with 83 of the 91 respondents 

selecting this factor. The second most selected answer was flexiplace/telework, with 82 

respondents selecting this factor. The third and fourth most selected answers were people you 

work with and compensation, respectively. Respondents selected their supervisors, mission, and 

training opportunities as other factors influencing their continued employment at FCA, but the 

commissioning process was only selected by 13 respondents. There were three respondents that 

selected other and listed additional factors, such as travel and office location.

54

83

59

43

41

13

82

35

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Compensation

Benefits

People you work with

Supervisor

Mission

Commissioning process

Flexiplace/telework

Training opportunities

Other

What factors influence your decision to remain at FCA? 

(Select all that apply)
30

Question 12

What is the most important factor in your job satisfaction?

The OIG asked respondents to select the most important factor in their job satisfaction. Of the 91 

respondents, 43 stated compensation and benefits was the most important factor, which 

accounted for 47 percent of the respondents’ answers. The second most selected factor in job 

satisfaction was flexiplace/telework. This accounted for 28, or 31 percent of the respondents’ 

selections. Of the remaining respondents, 9 selected meaningful work or assignments, 8 selected 

advancement opportunities, and 3 selected recognition and awards. This information could be 

useful in determining factors that could help improve attrition rates and influence policy-making 

decisions on examiner compensation, benefits, and remote work options. 

8

43

28

9

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Advancement

opportunities

Compensation and

benefits

Flexiplace/telework Meaningful work

and assignments

Recognition and

awards

What is the most important factor in your job 

satisfaction?
31

Question 13

Please leave any additional comments on FCA's recruiting process or retention efforts. 

For the last question in the survey, the OIG asked respondents to leave any additional comments 

on FCA’s recruiting process or retention efforts. Of the 91 respondents, 26 did not leave additional 

comments or left comments that were not substantial in nature. The remaining respondents left

65 comments, and the OIG grouped the comments by theme. 

• 12 comments were generally positive remarks on FCA’s efforts. One respondent stated 

that retention efforts have been going in the right direction recently, with allowing more 

telework and pay adjustments. Another respondent stated that FCA efforts to retain 

employees appear reasonable, although some staff may expect even more. The 

respondent stated they appreciated all of the attention the Agency has given to this issue.

• 17 comments were about pay and benefits. Most of the respondents stated that pay 

increases have not held up against inflation increases. Most concerning is that several 

respondents noted struggles in cost-of-living situations that may force them to look for 

positions outside of FCA. Respondents’ comments seemed generally happy with FCA’s 

compensation packages, however, many felt this was not enough. One respondent stated 

the following, “Recently the board released their benefit package to combat retention 

issues. However, none of those items would retain anyone given their insignificant 

changes/applicability. Retention is still an issue and staff, mainly exam staff, are suffering 

because of it.”

• 11 comments were about the recruiting and hiring process. One respondent remarked that 

FCA recruits the same young people, from the same colleges over and over again as recent 

graduates. Several respondents noted the length of time the hiring process takes for new 

hires. Another respondent noted that recruiting should be implemented at new 

universities outside of office locations.

• 6 comments were about retention efforts. Most of the comments brought up the struggle 

to stay at FCA with rising costs. One respondent stated that most Associate Examiners rent 

their apartments and their own rent went up 20-22 percent and noted this could create a 

retention problem.

• 5 comments were in favor of or against flexiplace and telework options. Some respondents 

stated that telework and flexiplace should be increased. One respondent stated that 

telework is not a good environment for learning a new job. 

• 14 comments either combined more than one theme or did not include a theme noted 

above. Some of those comments are noted below:

o “FCA needs to implement an accelerated commissioning process for Mid-Career 

hires; or recognize higher educational achievements (i.e. MBA) and/or FCS job 

experience for advancement opportunities. The current 'glass ceiling' which inhibits 

advancement opportunities for non-commissioned Mid-Career hires is simply 

inequitable. It is also a lost opportunity for the agency to diversify its work force 
32

and leverage relevant knowledge and skill sets of highly qualified and competent 

individuals.”

o “Retention is negatively impacted due to a lack of leadership at FCA, and the

cumbersome and overly burdensome commissioning process.”

o “It would be nice to see FCA improve recruiting processes surrounding diversity

and inclusion. Most new-hire classes are majority white, and male. As we evolve,

we need to see this practice improve.”

o “FCA has improved efforts to diversify new hires in recent years. FCA's practice of

hiring back former examiners (who quit) at a higher grade or rate of pay is a slap

in the face to all employees who have never left the agency. More focus should be

done to acknowledge examiners who have stayed to serve the agency since hiring.”
REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, & 

MISMANAGEMENT 

Fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in government concerns 

everyone: Office of Inspector General staff, FCA 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.