Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br />FEMA should fund States to initiate or <br />continue performance of State CAPEs in <br />order to increase the scope and <br />effectiveness of the CAPE process. <br /> <br />5. States' willingness to assist in CAPEs appears to be <br />affected by their perception that FEMA follow-up on <br />CAPEs is inadequate. Many States identified weaknesses <br />in or the absence of FEMA follow-up on CAPEs held both <br />by the States and FEMA. Even where violations are <br />identified, FEMA response is often limited only to <br />sending a follow-up letter. Since most States recognize <br />that enforcement can only be performed by FEMA as <br />follow-up to a CAPE, this problem appears to limit State <br />willingness to perform CAPEs. State credibility is <br />perceived to be undermined where action to correct <br />identified violations is not forthcoming from FEMA. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br />FEMA should prepare guidelines for its <br />enforcement follow-up on CAPEs and apply <br />them as the need is indicated in a CAPE. <br /> <br />6. The maiority of States feel that flood insurance issues <br />need to be a part of all State CAPEs. Complete <br />evaluation of community response to the NFIP requires <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />