Principle 8: Training and technical assistance in floodplain management need to be available to state's communities.
Effective state programs assess community needs and provide ongoing training opportunities, as well as access to technical assistance. In most communities, floodplain management is just one of many responsibilities that are handled by a small number of staff. The administration of floodplain provisions, however, can be quite complex, and the consequences of inadequate attention can have negative impacts on the community in terms of costs, legal actions, and losses. Alternatively, communities who show leadership and dedicate proper resources can inspire positive actions that benefit the whole community.
Specific actions that effective state programs take include:
- Producing a reference manual to inform local officials about floodplain management
- Monitoring how communities administer regulations, including violation enforcement
- Supporting community efforts to participate in the Community Rating System
- Holding workshops and training
- Encouraging local staff to become Certified Floodplain Managers (CFMs)
- Supporting state-level professional associations
- Producing newsletters and webpages
- Remaining accessible to local staff
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 8 Highlights
Question 173. Ideal frequency for Community Assistance Contact
- Community Assistance Contact (CAC) frequency should be based on risk: Respondents preferred more frequent CACs (every 2–4 years or annually) for communities with floodplain management problems or experiencing growth, and less frequent contacts (every 5–7 years) for those with little development or a small policy count (Question 173, Table P8.1).
Table P8.1. Results for Question 173 – Ideally, how often do you think NFIP communities should have a Community Assistance Contact or CAC?
Question 174. Ideal frequency for Community Assistance Visits
- Similar to the results for CACs above, respondents preferred shorter intervals (every 2–4 years) between Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) for communities with problems or growth, and longer intervals (five years or more) for stable or low-activity communities (Question 174, Table P8.2).
Table P8.2. Results for Question 174 – Ideally, how often do you think NFIP communities should have a Community Assistance Visit or CAV?
Question 177. How states prioritize community monitoring visits
- When prioritizing the order of community monitoring visits, "suspected violations/known compliance issues" (97%), "admin suggests visit" (84%), and "new/inexperienced floodplain admin or staff" (81%) were rated as extremely or very important by the highest percentages of respondents (Question 177, Table P8.3).
Table P8.3. Results for Question 177 – How important is each of the following in prioritizing the order of your community monitoring visits?
Questions 180-181. Rating the support from FEMA Regional Offices
- Most respondents (64%) felt positively about the support received from their FEMA Regional Office (Question 180, Figure P8.4) to address enforcement needs ("very often" or "extremely often").
- Of the 11% of states that reported "rarely" receiving the support they need, their frustration was with FEMA’s lack of action or slow follow-up when communities refuse to resolve violations, suggesting the need for more active use of probation/suspension, a need for increased FEMA staff, and faster response times. Similar concerns about the need for FEMA to enforce actions and respond in a timely manner were also raised in 2017 (Question 181).
Figure P8.4. Results for Question 180 – How often do you receive the support you consider appropriate and necessary from your FEMA Regional Office to address enforcement needs in your state?
Question 183. Need for more floodplain management assistance to communities & Question 184. Specific unmet needs for floodplain management assistance to communities
- An unmet need for more floodplain management assistance (Question 183) was reported by 76% of states (identical to 2017), with the most frequently cited specific needs being training (85%), enforcement (68%), and mapping (65%) (Question 184, Table P8.5).
Table P8.5. Results for Question 184 – Do the following types of community needs for floodplain management assistance remain unmet?
Question 190. Interest in flood-related Emergency Management Institute field-deployed training & Question 191. Challenges with holding flood-related EMI field-deployed training
- Question 190 asked respondents how much interest there would be in their state for Emergency Management Institute (EMI) field-deployed trainings. E273 Managing Floodplain Development through the NFIP received the highest interest overall, with 75% indicating “quite a bit” or “a great deal.”
- Staffing is the greatest challenge for getting EMI field-deployed training, followed by funding. Additional challenges include high costs for travel and time away, difficulty finding instructors, and internet reliability in remote locations (Question 191, Table P8.9).
Table P8.9. Results for Question 191 – How much of a challenge is each of the following in terms of holding flood-related EMI field deployed training in your state?
Questions 192-193. Publications/tools designed for communities by states
Floodplain Management Desk Reference, Floodplain Management Ready Reference, Substantial Damage Management Plan, Flood Recovery Guide
Base Flood Elevation Portal, Climate Change Tool, Flood Observation Reporting Tool, Community Draft Webmaps
- 75% of states have developed new publications or tools since 2017 to provide technical assistance for reducing flood losses and protecting natural floodplain functions (Question 192).
- These resources include guidebooks, manuals, worksheets, and applications covering topics such as Substantial Damage/Substantial Improvement, model ordinances, climate data and resilience, and guidance for new floodplain managers (Question 193).
Continue to Principle 9 Highlights
Principle 1 | Principle 2 | Principle 3 | Principle 4 | Principle 5
Principle 6 | Principle 7 | Principle 8 | Principle 9 | Principle 10