Principle 10: Evaluation of the effectiveness of state floodplain management programs is essential and successes should be documented.
An effective state program finds ways to tally and keep records on aspects of floodplain management in its jurisdiction, such as creating an inventory of flood-prone properties; documenting damage avoided and successful mitigation projects post disaster; keeping an account of the acres of floodplain lands preserved in a natural state or otherwise protected; monitoring community program administration; and tracking the progress of mitigation projects. Such data are essential to evaluating how effective programs are and adjusting programs to be even more effective.
Measuring successful floodplain management is not a straightforward process, in part because success is measured by floods and damage that do not occur and by floodplain benefits that are difficult to measure. However, an effective state program can find ways to calculate different aspects of the status of floodplain management within its jurisdiction by examining overall impacts (or outcomes) and program operations.
Note: The table and figure numbers found below follow the order of those in the full 2025 FPM Assessment report [.pdf] and may not be sequential. Tables can be sorted by clicking on column headings. If tables and/or charts do not load, try refreshing the page.
Principle 10 Highlights
Question 214. Metrics tracking the state floodplain management program outcomes
- Overall, few states have developed formal metrics for evaluating management outcomes (Question 214).
- The highest reported management outcome tracking was for "increased floodplain acreage in open space" (18%), while "lower actual flood losses, both direct and indirect" was the lowest (9%). In 2017, the results were similar, with few states having formal metrics.
Question 215. Measures identifying direct losses and costs & Question 216. Measures identifying indirect losses and costs
- Of responding states, only a small number reported having established quantitative measures to identify direct flood-related losses or costs (Question 215), or have developed methods to measure indirect flood-related losses or costs (Question 216) – most states do not systematically track these data.
Question 217. Developing baseline metrics for measuring progress
- Most states have not tracked or gathered specific data since 2017 to set baseline metrics for floodplain management progress (Question 217, Table P10.4).
- The most common data tracked relates to mitigation (30%) and identification of flood-prone lands (26%) or structures (27%).
Table P10.4. Results for Question 217 – Since 2017, has your state tracked, inventoried, or gathered information for any of the following in order to develop baseline metrics for measuring progress?
Question 218. Evaluating outcomes
- Most states do not formally evaluate progress toward the outcomes listed in Table P10.5, according to responses to Question 218. The most evaluated outcomes were "improved water quality, natural storage, and recharge" (23%) and "preserved natural habitats, forests, or wetlands" (22%).
Table P10.5. Results for Question 218 – Currently, does your state floodplain management program evaluate progress toward any of the following outcomes?
Question 219. Evaluating operational components
- When asked whether state floodplain management programs currently evaluate specific operational components of their programs, approximately two-thirds of responding states reported incorporating reviews of staffing levels, specific activities, and budgets into their program evaluations (Question 219, Table P10.6).
Table P10.6. Results for Question 219 – Currently, does your state floodplain management program evaluate the following operational components?
Go back to Principle 1 Highlights
Principle 1 | Principle 2 | Principle 3 | Principle 4 | Principle 5
Principle 6 | Principle 7 | Principle 8 | Principle 9 | Principle 10