Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />one repeatedly emerged. States feel that they are in a <br />better position than the Federal Government to assist <br />local communities and have better rapport with them. <br />The second most frequently cited reason was the <br />similarity of CAPE functions to tasks set out in State <br />legislation. The most frequently cited drawback was the <br />misinterpretation that CAPEs require State enforcement <br />of a Federal program. <br /> <br />3 . <br /> <br />Many States misinterpret enforcement to be a part of <br />CAPEs. CAPEs combine technical assistance and <br />monitoring, but States often misinterpret them to <br />include enforcement. Enforcement is a follow-up <br />activity to CAPEs, where the need is indicated in the <br />CAPE report, and can only be performed by FEMA. This is <br />a significant problem because it is frequently cited as <br />the reason why States have chosen not to assist in CAPE <br />perfo'rmance. <br /> <br />States only perform CAPEs where FEMA funds their <br />participation. Sixty-five percent of State CAPEs were <br />fully funded by FEMA. Thirty percent of the States <br />joined with FEMA in providing funds. Only one State has <br />performed CAPEs solely with State funds, but it is now <br />jointly funding them with FEMA. <br />