CAP-SSSE Tiered State 

Framework (TSF) 

Playbook 

Version 4.1 

November 2023 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

This page intentionally left blank
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

i 

Version History

Version Date Edit

1.0 January 14, 2020 N/A

1.1 January 15, 2020 Submission evidence in characteristic III.D Participating 

Communities edited to include instructions for those wishing 

to submit analyses and outreach plans.

1.2 January 28, 2020 Changes to I.A. (Foundational Evidence and Proficient 

Benchmark); further clarification around Evidence in all 

characteristics; Adjustments to III.B. to clarify that higher 

standards will be included in the NOFO and should be 

incorporated into the SOW, even though it is not being 

assessed this year; and adjustments to the wording of the 

benchmarks and evidence in III.D. to further clarify the 

options for submitting evidence or accepting FEMA-provided 

data.

2.0 October 2020 Added new TSF Assessment Cycle Calendar to the 

introduction; New call-out boxes with examples of eligible 

activities to help states move up a tier for nearly all 

characteristics; Added consequence for submitting TSF 

Assessment late as part of I.D; Added more context or clarity 

to evidence section of characteristics IA, IB, ID, IE, IID, IIE, 

IVA, IVB, IVC, IVD, and IVE; Added more clarity to benchmarks 

of characteristics IIA, IIB, and IIC; Added more context around 

how the performance measure is calculated for 

characteristics IIIA, IIB, and IIIC; Added caveats and 

adjustments for requirements for new and returning CAPSSSE grant applicants.

3.0 October 2021 Added exceptions language for FY20 PoP dates for 

characteristics I.C and I.D due to COVID-19. Added 

explanation about when performance measure 

determinations are made each year to category III. 

Performance Measures section.

4.0 October 2022 Noted connections to CFR requirements throughout. Added 

new timeline to the introduction; Added further clarification 

on below foundational status; Added more clarity to the 

benchmarks for characteristics IA, IB, ID, IIA, IIB, IIC, IIE, IIIA, 

IIIB, IIIC, IVB and IVF; Lowered benchmarks for IC, IE, and IIA; 

Raised or added benchmarks for characteristics IIF, IID, IIIC, 

and IVF and added characteristics IIC, IIH, III, and IVG. Added 

new red call-out boxes that summarize changes that will be 

scored in 2026.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

ii

Version Date Edit

4.1 September 2023 Reformatted text so that originally noted “upcoming 

changes” replaced previous language in each characteristic’s 

table; Clarified characteristics with changes taking effect 

across the board in 2026 but can be submitted for in the 

2024 Off-Cycle; Added additional examples of evidence and 

clarifications of existing benchmarks. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

iii

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

The Tiered State Framework (TSF) .................................................................................................... 2

The TSF Assessment and Assignment Process ................................................................................ 3

Continual Improvement of the TSF ................................................................................................... 5

Using this TSF Playbook .................................................................................................................... 6

Submission Instructions .................................................................................................................... 7

I. CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................... 9

I.A. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities ..................................... 10

I.B. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned Properties ............................. 13

I.C. Financial Grant Management ................................................................................................. 16

I.D. Administrative Grant Management ........................................................................................ 19

I.E. Ability to Overmatch ................................................................................................................ 21

II. CAPABILITY ......................................................................................................................... 23

II.A. Investment in Professional Development .............................................................................. 24

II.B. Communication with Communities on NFIP Topics ............................................................... 27

II.C. Basic Floodplain Management Training Coverage (New) ...................................................... 30

II.D. Ability to Deliver a Variety of Training ..................................................................................... 32

II.E. Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain Management Regulations ............ 34

II.F. Substantial Damage Program ................................................................................................ 37

II.G. Percent of Participating Communities .................................................................................... 40

II.H. Addressing Equity in Floodplain Management (New) ............................................................ 43

II.I. Improving Resilience to Climate Change and Future Conditions (New) ............................... 45

III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES .............................................................................................. 47

III.A. Communities Engaged ............................................................................................................ 48

III.B.Higher Standards Adoption .................................................................................................... 50

III.C.Community Compliance Improvement ................................................................................... 52

III.D.Map Adoption (New) ............................................................................................................... 54
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

iv

IV. PLANNING AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 56

IV.A. Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products ..................................................................... 57

IV.B.Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the State ....................................................... 59

IV.C. Coordination with Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) (other than FEMA) ................................. 61

IV.D.Coordination with Insurance Professionals ........................................................................... 63

IV.E. Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations .......................................... 65

IV.F. Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures ................................................ 67

IV.G.Strategic Planning (New) ........................................................................................................ 69

APPENDIX A. SUMMARY TABLES OF CHARACTERISTICS AND BENCHMARKS ....................... 70

APPENDIX B. CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW OR RETURNING STATE NFIP COORDINATING 

AGENCIES .................................................................................................................................. 73

APPENDIX C. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... 76

APPENDIX D. RELEVANT DATES FOR 2024 OFF-CYCLE ASSESSMENT FOR CHARACTERISTIC 

I.D. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANT MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 78
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 1 

Introduction

The Community Assistance Program–State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) is a cooperative 

agreement that provides funding to State NFIP Coordinating Agencies (also referred to throughout 

this document as “the states”) to support communities in implementing the requirements of the 

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Through CAP-SSSE, states multiply the NFIP’s ability to 

evaluate local compliance with the NFIP and provide technical assistance to support communities in 

adopting, administering, and enforcing effective flood loss reduction standards for land use and 

development. They also work to implement statewide actions that reduce the damage and costs of 

flooding. 

The designation, duties, and responsibilities of State NFIP Coordinating Agencies set forth in Title 44 

Part 60.25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR Section 60.25) encourage states and 

territories to demonstrate a commitment to the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP 

(as set forth in Sections 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5) by designating an agency of state government to be 

responsible for coordinating the aspects of NFIP floodplain management in that state. The annual 

CAP-SSSE Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) applies CAP-SSSE grant eligibility to these 

designated agencies. 44 CFR Section 60.25(b) further establishes that State NFIP Coordinating 

Agencies shall maintain the capability to perform a variety of duties of responsibilities including: 

enacting enabling legislation for communities to regulate development in the floodplain, promoting 

NFIP participation, providing technical assistance to support communities in implementing floodplain 

management regulations, and disseminating program information to other state and local agencies. 

As such, FEMA further evaluates CAP-SSSE grant eligibility, proposed work activities, and award 

amounts based on each State NFIP Coordinating Agency’s capability, capacity, performance, and 

statewide coordination of the duties and responsibilities set forth in 44 CFR Section 60.25(b). 

CAP-SSSE is a long-standing and effective partnership between FEMA and the states that recognizes 

the value of state-led community assistance in reducing flood losses and disaster suffering. Since 

the 1980s, FEMA has partnered with states through cooperative agreements to leverage their 

unique capabilities, relationships, and land use authorities to ensure that development is guided to 

reduce risk from flooding and to prevent increases in flooding potential. As such, the characteristics 

of effective state floodplain management programs has been a subject of considerable interest to 

FEMA, who has funded studies by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Association of 

State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR)in addition to 

undertaking its own comprehensive evaluation in 2017. The findings from these evaluations, 

together with the duties of State NFIP Coordinating Agencies set forth in 44 CFR Section 60.25(b) 

and the definitions and performance requirements set forth in 2 CFR Section 200.1 and Section

200.202 for cooperative agreements, form the foundation of the CAP-SSSE Tiered State Framework 

(TSF). The TSF brings federal requirements and recognized state/territory best practices together in 

a set of characteristics and benchmarks that define what constitutes eligibility and exemplary 

performance for the CAP-SSSE program. The TSF Playbook should be used by states, alongside the 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 2 

TSF Assessment Tool, to inform and validate evidence to be submitted in support of their desired 

TSF tier assignment. The TSF Playbook supplements information provided in the CAP-SSSE NOFO.

The Tiered State Framework (TSF)

In response to feedback from state partners highlighting a need for clarity on the goals and 

performance standards of CAP-SSSE, FEMA created the CAP-SSSE Tiered State Framework (TSF). 

Feedback from regular engagements every year since 2018 via surveys, workshops, and in-person 

meetings with State NFIP Coordinators, Regional Community Assistance Program (CAP) Coordinators, 

and FEMA Regional Floodplain Management and Insurance Leadership (Branch Chiefs) has helped 

to develop and improve the TSF. The TSF helps FEMA recognize, invest in, and incentivize state 

efforts to develop and maintain the capabilities necessary to carry out the duties of a State NFIP 

Coordinating Agency as defined in 44 CFR Section 60.25(b). The TSF and the aligned program 

funding methodology allow FEMA to:

 Increase transparency around state floodplain management activities and best practices;

 Enable a performance-based program that can fairly and consistently evaluate State NFIP 

Coordinating Agency strengths and areas of improvement; and 

 Establish a level playing field for CAP-SSSE to make judgements about the resources that states 

may require to deliver upon the goals of the program.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the TSF establishes three tiers that summarizes the strength of the State 

NFIP Coordinating Agency’s floodplain management program: Foundational, Proficient, and 

Advanced. 

Figure 1: CAP-SSSE State Tiers

A state’s tier is based on a two-step assessment of the state’s floodplain management program 

against a series of benchmarks at least every three years. A state’s tier assignment influences their 

annual statement of work (SOW) and their funding. Significant strengths in a state’s TSF assessment 

enable special access to incentives such as additional funding, increased autonomy over workplans 

and strategies, and funding eligibility of certain non-traditional projects. Conversely, gaps or 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 3 

deficiencies in a state’s TSF assessment, coupled with their state-specific aspirations and goals, 

should help determine the types of activities the state should perform, their performance metrics, 

training recommendations, and subsequent funding levels to address those gaps. 

FEMA uses characteristics and benchmarks across four categories to assess and assign states to a 

tier (see Figure 2. and Appendix A). 

Figure 2: Four Categories of the Tiered State Framework

Each TSF characteristic and benchmark represents a performance outcome which allows for 

flexibility in how the outcome is achieved by the states. States must provide evidence to 

demonstrate that they meet the benchmarks in the TSF. In this way, the TSF assessment provides a 

quantifiable and equitable approach to ensure that each state receiving CAP-SSSE funding 

possesses the necessary capacity and expertise, a history of satisfactory performance, and adequate 

plans, strategies, and partnerships to accomplish the work in the most efficient and effective 

manner.

The Tiered State Framework Assessment and 

Assignment Process

FEMA requires a full TSF assessment from each state upon first applying for the CAP-SSSE grant and 

on an established three-year cycle thereafter. The first TSF assessment for all states was conducted 

in 2020. Subsequent required assessments will be conducted every three years thereafter. States 

may also request an off-cycle TSF assessment if they desire. This voluntary assessment might be 

beneficial for a state, for example, if they believe they meet the benchmarks for the next tier and 

would like to be assigned to that tier earlier than the next required assessment cycle. Off-cycle TSF 

assessments can be partial, characteristic-specific assessments. States do not need to submit a full 

assessment during off-cycle years. 

As Figure 3 shows, the TSF assessment cycle begins in November of each third year and is 

integrated into the grant administrative process. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 4 

Figure 3: Annual CAP-SSSE Administrative Timeline and Tiered State Framework Milestones

TSF assessments begin with a state self-assessment submitted at the beginning of the year. FEMA 

then validates the assessment through a comprehensive national review process to ensure the 

reliability of each state’s final TSF tier assignment. This is done through an in-person meeting, in 

which all of the FEMA Regional CAP Coordinators convene to discuss the evidence received by the 

states and territories in that region. and the FEMA Regional CAP Coordinators then make tier 

determinations to ensure national consistency in scoring. 

After the Regional CAP Coordinator sends the validated TSF Assessment Tool back to the state in 

early February, the state has five business days to respond with questions and submit additional 

evidence to the Region if they feel FEMA’s final tier determination is inconsistent with the state’s 

original assessment. The Region will then respond with the final determination within an additional 

five business days; no additional submission of evidence may be submitted by the state after this. 

FEMA and the state use TSF assessments to inform SOW development and award considerations for 

the upcoming period of performance (PoP), integrating appropriate requirements and incentives 

driven by the state’s tier assignment. Validated TSF assessments and final tier assignments are 

submitted in the grants system of record as an addendum to the state’s SOW with each application. 

States utilize the TSF Assessment Tool to perform self-assessments. The TSF Assessment Tool is an 

interactive Microsoft Excel-based form where a state selects the benchmarks that it meets and 

provides descriptive details about the evidence submitted for each. Based on the state’s benchmark 

selections, the tool calculates a score that automatically assigns the state to a corresponding tier. 

Foundational benchmarks receive one point, Proficient benchmarks receive two points, and 

Advanced benchmarks receive three points. No state will perfectly align to every benchmark in any 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 5 

one tier, thus score ranges (see Figure 4) determine a state’s tier assignment. The score ranges 

require a state to achieve most, but not all, of the benchmarks in the tier before they are assigned to 

that tier. The score ranges included here are for the 2023 assessment and consider only those 20 

characteristics that will be scored (i.e., does not include new characteristics or exempted 

characteristics States are encouraged to pursue points for new characteristics that will be scored in 

future mandatory cycles during off-cycle years if they can provide evidence of achieving the 

benchmarks. 

Figure 4: Tiered State Framework Score Ranges for the 2023 Assessment

It is critical to note that if a state scores below the Foundational benchmark in any one single 

characteristic, and their overall point score places them in at least the Foundational tier, they will be 

assessed as “Foundational.” If a state scores below the Foundational benchmark in two or more 

characteristics, they will be assessed as “Below Foundational” regardless of their overall point score. 

These states will not be eligible for incentive funding at the next award even if their overall point 

score is Proficient or Advanced. Any state that has scored below the Foundational benchmarks in any 

characteristics is subject to more intervention by FEMA, up to and including more prescriptive 

requirements for how their federal funding is used and requirements for a formal corrective action 

plan to address TSF deficiencies expediently. Any state that is not able to demonstrate Foundational 

performance (i.e., a total score of at least 17), will not be eligible for the CAP-SSSE grant. 

Continual Improvement of the Tiered State Framework

In partnership with the State NFIP Coordinating Agencies, FEMA reviews and, as needed, revises the 

TSF at each three-year required cycle. The purpose of this review process is to continue to incentivize 

state capability and capacity building, offer better guidance and examples, reduce any complexity or 

confusion, and align the framework with any emerging priorities or best practices to keep pace with 

the ever-evolving emergency management discipline. As Figure 5 illustrates, each TSF assessment 

looks back at the previous three completed PoPs. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 6 

Figure 5: The Three-Year Required Tiered State Framework Assessment Cycle

Clarifications to benchmarks or evidence requirements, or additional assessment guidance, will be 

implemented and scored in the current cycle and apply to the previous three years. In some 

instances, lowered benchmarks may also be implemented into the TSF and scored in the current 

year. Significant changes to the TSF that raise the expectations or score thresholds for states, such 

as the addition of new benchmarks or characteristics or raising an existing benchmark, will be 

implemented and scored in the next requirement assessment and apply to the next three years. 

Therefore, states should begin implementing the activities now to be prepared for scoring in the next 

assessment.

Using this Tiered State Framework Playbook 

This TSF Playbook should be used in conjunction with the TSF Assessment Tool. As states perform 

their TSF self-assessments in the TSF Assessment Tool, they should use the categories and 

characteristics in this Playbook to validate benchmarks and determine what evidence to submit in 

support of their desired tier assignment. All applicants should use the playbook, but New and 

Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants should refer to the appendix for additional guidance. 

CAP-SSSE Grantee Types 

 Existing Grantees: grantees that have received the CAP-SSSE grant continuously for the last 

three or more years.

 Returning Applicants: an applicant that was previously a CAP-SSSE grantee but did not apply 

for the grant within the last year. 

 New Applicants: an applicant that has never been a recipient of the CAP-SSSE grant.

The playbook has four chapters that align to the four TSF categories. As illustrated in Figure 6, each 

category chapter provides a detailed overview of each of the characteristics within that category, 

including the intention behind its inclusion in the TSF, the benchmarks that must be met for each 

tier, and the type of evidence required to demonstrate that those benchmarks have, in fact, been 

met. Evidence of submission and SOW development guidance is also included. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 7 

Figure 6: Tiered State Framework Playbook Benchmark and Evidence Structure for Each 

Characteristic

Following the benchmarks and evidence, there are examples of eligible activities for states who wish 

to improve their score in each characteristic marked by the call-out box below. 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may 

consider incorporating into their next SOW and grant application1 to help improve their score in 

this characteristic: 

These ideas take the form of a list of CAP-SSSE eligible activities that the state and FEMA Region can 

consider including in the state’s SOW for the current PoP (via formal amendment) or the next PoP. 

Submission Instructions 

TSF Assessments are due to the FEMA Regional CAP Coordinator on the last business day of the first 

week of January every year. States must email their completed TSF assessment tools to the Region 

along with all supporting evidence using the file name convention below. Consistent file naming 

1 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Introduction 8 

makes for an efficient review process and ensures all evidence is assessed against the appropriate 

characteristic. It’s important to note that there are several characteristics that FEMA provides the 

evidence for and does not require separate evidence submissions from states.

For certain characteristics, special submission instructions are provided within the TSF Playbook. If 

no special submission instructions are provided, defer to these default instructions. 

XX_Category_Characteristic Letter_Benchmark_title 

(where XX is your state’s abbreviation)

(where title is the name of the document being submitted, as determined by you)

Example: MD_Capability_A_Foundational_Resume
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 9 

I. Capacity 

The characteristics in this category demonstrate that states have the capacity to ensure that NFIP 

requirements are met and maintained and that they manage the CAP-SSSE grant accordingly. 

The Capacity category encompasses five characteristics: 

A. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities

B. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned Properties

C. Financial Grant Management

D. Administrative Grant Management

E. Ability to Overmatch 

The following subsections discuss each characteristic in detail.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 10 

I.A. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities

This characteristic intends to measure how a state ensures that participating communities adopt and enforce minimum NFIP requirements. 

Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Section 60.25(b)(1) which sets forth state duties related to land use 

authorities.

Table 1: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic I.A State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for Local Communities.

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The state has 

enacted legislation 

enabling 

communities to 

regulate 

development within 

flood-prone areas 

that meet minimum 

NFIP and state 

standards 

 The state meets the Foundational 

benchmark

AND 

 The state has policies and 

procedures in place that define 

the point at which a community 

moves from the “follow-up” phase 

to the “enforcement” phase of 

compliance and the case is 

referred to FEMA for enforcement 

action 

 The state meets the Proficient benchmark

AND 

 The state has written laws or policies and procedures in place 

that provide for state-led enforcement actions (e.g., penalties 

or restrictions that are within the state’s authority, grants 

withholding actions, etc.) prior to referring compliance cases to 

FEMA for suspension or probation

 The state has an executive order (EO)/law/statute reflecting 

higher standards (i.e., standards and ordinances that exceed 

NFIP minimum requirements regarding land use and 

development) and applicable enforcement authority

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. Examples of such evidence are listed below. For this characteristic, 

states are required to submit evidence showing achievement once over the course of the three PoPs. All examples are potential 

options of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 11 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

One of the following:

 Official citation of the 

law, executive order, 

or other legal action 

meeting at least 

minimum NFIP 

standards and a PDF 

or link to it 

 State model 

ordinance that meets 

the NFIP minimum 

standards and has 

an enforcement 

component or 

enforcement 

language

 Foundational evidence

PLUS one or more of the following:

 A standard operating procedure 

(SOP) for identifying and 

mitigating community NFIP 

violations, with milestones/ 

thresholds for state follow-up and 

details for when and how 

enforcement referrals are handed 

off to FEMA

 Evidence in writing of CAV/CAC 

records or correspondence sent 

to FEMA after the state follow-up 

period with a community (via 

email or other method)

 Letter templates advising a 

community of violation, corrective 

action, and timelines for action by 

state or by FEMA

 Foundational and Proficient evidence

 Official citation of the law, executive order, or other legal action 

reflecting higher standards (i.e., standards and ordinances that 

exceed NFIP minimum requirements) and enforcement 

authority 

AND 

 PDF or link to it 

PLUS one or more of the following:

 Evidence that state-led enforcement actions have occurred in 

the last 3 years (e.g., penalties or restrictions that are within 

the state’s authority, grants withholding actions, etc.)

 An SOP for identifying and mitigating community NFIP and/or 

state higher standards violations with milestones/ thresholds 

for follow-up and enforcement by the state

 Letter templates for state-initiated compliance action, advising 

a community of violation(s) and future enforcement action(s) by 

the state
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 12 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application to help improve their score in this characteristic:

 Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next 

SOW and grant application to help improve their score in this characteristic:

 Regular coordination with the state legislature to establish a “seat at the table” for providing technical floodplain 

management/NFIP input and influencing legislative priorities. 

 Development and implementation of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for (1) Identifying potential violations or program 

deficiencies and (2) Taking enforcement action and referring to FEMA.

 Development and implementation of template enforcement products (e.g., letters, memos, etc.).

 Development and implementation of communications plans, templates, and/or key messaging that help communities and other 

state agencies understand their floodplain management responsibilities. 

 Coordination with legal specialists/authorities within the state to establish enforcement procedures.

 Conducting reviews of state department of transportation (DOT) projects for floodplain management impacts.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 13 

I.B. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned Properties

This characteristic intends to measure how a state enforces NFIP requirements for all state-owned (and managed, as applicable) properties. 

Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Section 60.25(b)(9), and 44 CFR Section 60.12 which set forth state duties 

for coordinating floodplain management across state agencies and complying with the floodplain management criteria set forth in 44 CFR 

Sections 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5.

Table 2: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic I.B. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for State-Owned 

Properties.

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The state has enacted legislation requiring 

at least NFIP minimums for state-owned or -

managed development activities, including 

in non-participating communities

 We recognize there are three ways to 

demonstrate state compliance with the 

NFIP. 44 CFR Section 60.12(a) outlines that 

states shall either (1) comply with the 

floodplain management requirements of all 

local communities participating in the 

program in which state-owned properties are 

located (“community-administered”); or (2) 

establish and enforce floodplain 

management regulations which, at a 

minimum, satisfy the criteria set forth in 

Section 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5 (“stateadministered”). (3) States that are selfinsured must meet the requirements defined 

in Section 75.

 The state meets the Foundational 

benchmark

AND 

 The state has the authority and 

written policies and procedures in 

place to monitor permitting and 

enforce compliance of state-owned 

or managed development actions

 The state has a process for how 

permits for state-owned or -managed 

development in the Special Flood 

Hazard Area (SFHA) are issued, 

including a central agency or point of 

contact for coordination within the 

state

 The state meets the Proficient 

benchmark

AND 

 The state has a statewide higher 

standard for state-owned or managed 

development and a record of mitigating 

non-compliant state-owned or managed 

structures
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 14 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. Examples of such evidence are listed below. For this characteristic, 

states are required to submit evidence showing achievement once over the course of the three PoPs. All examples are potential options 

of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required. In 2024, FEMA will utilize 

evidence from the State Assessment effort, which states may supplement if they desire.

No submission is required in 2024 

 This data will come from the State 

Assessment Tracker (which is filled out by 

the Regions) and will thus be provided by 

FEMA

OR 

 Official citation of the law, executive order, 

or other legal action requiring state 

agencies, institutions, and properties to 

meet at least minimum NFIP standards

AND 

 A PDF or link to it

No submission is required in 2024 

 This data will come from the State 

Assessment Tracker (which is filled 

out by the Regions) and will thus be 

provided by FEMA

OR 

 Foundational Evidence

PLUS one or more of the following: 

 A standard operating procedure 

(SOP) for identifying and mitigating 

community NFIP violations, with 

milestones/ thresholds for state 

follow-up and details for when and 

how enforcement referrals are 

handed off to FEMA

 State Assessment Data Call records 

or other records of alerting FEMA 

Regional office about violations 

connected to state activities

 Official citation of the law, executive 

order, or other legal action reflecting 

higher standards (i.e., standards and 

ordinances that exceed NFIP minimum 

requirements) and enforcement 

authority

AND 

 A PDF or link to it 

PLUS one or more of the following: 

 Evidence that state-led enforcement 

actions have occurred in the last three 

years (e.g., penalties or restrictions that 

are within the state’s authority, grants 

withholding actions, etc.)

 An SOP for identifying and mitigating 

community NFIP and/or state higher 

standards violations with milestones/ 

thresholds for follow-up and 

enforcement by the state
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 15 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application2 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Regular coordination with the state legislature to establish a “seat at the table” for providing technical floodplain 

management/NFIP input and influencing legislative priorities. 

 Development and implementation of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for (1) identifying potential violations or program 

deficiencies and (2) taking enforcement action and/or referring to FEMA.

 Development and implementation of template enforcement products (e.g., letters, memos, etc.).

 Development and implementation of communications plans, templates, and/or key messaging that help state agencies 

understand their floodplain management responsibilities. 

 Coordination with legal specialists/authorities within the state to establish enforcement procedures.

 Conducting reviews of state DOT projects for floodplain management impacts.

2 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 16 

I.C. Financial Grant Management

This characteristic intends to measure that the state has the capacity to meet the financial requirements of the CAP grant. Inclusion of this 

characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 2 CFR Section 200.206(i) financial stability and (iii) history of performance, which all set forth 

requirements related to managing the finances of a grant. Percentages listed are based on actual trends from FEMA’s systems of record 

(Community Information System, ND Grants, Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS)). 

Table 3: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic I.C. Financial Grant Management. 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The state has deobligated 10% or less of 

its cumulative funding over the past 

three yearsa (i.e., the total deobligated 

funds divided by the total awards over 

the past three years does not exceed 

10%)b; PoP extensions over the past 

three years do not exceed twelve months 

in any one yearb

 The state has deobligated 4% or less 

of its cumulative funding over the 

past three yearsa (i.e., the total 

deobligated funds divided by the total 

awards over the past three years 

does not exceed 4%)b; PoP 

extensions over the past three years 

do not exceed nine months in any 

one yearb

 The state has deobligated no more 

than 2% of its cumulative funding over 

the past three yearsa; PoP extensions 

over the past three yearsb do not 

exceed a cumulative total of six 

months. 

Evidence

FEMA will pull supporting evidence from government databases and share it with the state for validation before assigning a 

corresponding tier for this characteristic. For this characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show overall achievement across the 

three PoPs.

Payment and Reporting System (PARS) 

Report from ND Grants

PARS Report from ND Grants PARS Report from ND Grants

Special Submission Instructions

The Regional CAP Coordinator will provide this data to states via the IFMIS reports that denote obligations and deobligations. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 17 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

No submission is required

IFMIS, Community Information System (CIS), PARS, and ND Grants are all official FEMA systems of record up to fiscal year (FY) 2022. 

For FY22 and beyond, FEMA GO, CIS, (and PARS/IFMIS) are the systems of record. Though it is FEMA’s intention to use only the 

records in these systems to demonstrate performance at these benchmarks, we do realize that data entry errors or other reporting 

limitations could be present. If you find an error in your FEMA-provided data, you may submit evidence to support this claim:

 Email evidence to support its position to the Regional CAP Coordinator

 Use the subject line: I.C: Financial Grant Management Discrepancy

 List the information provided by FEMA, the tier the state believes it should be, and the supporting evidence

NOTES:

a New CAP-SSSE applicants will not have a CAP-SSSE grant financial management history and will enter the program as Foundational with a mandatory 

reassessment after one year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants with any active grants in the last two years will be assessed using those grants for 

their tier determination.

b Exceptions for deobligation and extension benchmarks will be granted for the July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 PoP, the July 1, 2020 – June 30 2021 PoP, 

and the July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 PoP due to planning uncertainty with regard to COVID-19. These exceptions are reflected in the TSF score ranges 

on page iv and in the TSF Assessment Tool.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 18 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application3 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of process documentation and point of contact (POC) information for key process steps, review/decision points, and 

handoffs for how grant funds are received, drawn down, documented, and closed out.

 Regular coordination with the grants/finance office/division of the state.

 Participation in Grants Management training/courses.

3 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 19 

I.D. Administrative Grant Management

This characteristic intends to measure that the state can meet the administrative requirements of the grant, primarily related to timely and 

accurate applications and reporting. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 2 CFR Section 200.329, which sets forth 

expectations for monitoring and reporting program performance.

Table 4: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic I.D. Administrative Grant Management. 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The state submits NOFO application, 

quarterly performance reports, a final ND 

grants application, a TSF Assessment (as 

applicable) and satisfies other grant 

award administrative requirements (as 

needed) by deadlines with no more than 

three late submissions

 The state submits a NOFO application, 

quarterly performance reports, a final ND 

grants application, a TSF Assessment (as 

applicable) and satisfies other grant 

award administrative requirements (as 

needed) by deadlines with no more than 

one late submission

 The state submits a NOFO application, 

quarterly performance reports, a final ND 

grants application, a TSF Assessment (as 

applicable) and satisfies other grant 

award administrative requirements (as 

needed) by deadlines

Evidence – See Appendix D for due dates

The Regional CAP Coordinator will pull supporting evidence from ND Grants and other government databases and share it with the state 

for validation before assigning a corresponding tier for this characteristic. For this characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show 

overall achievement across the three PoPs.

 All quarterly report submission dates 

over the last three yearsa

PLUS 

 Grant application submission date 

PLUS 

 TSF assessment submission dates (as 

applicable) over the last three yearsa

 All quarterly report submission dates 

over the last three yearsa

PLUS 

 Grant application submission date 

PLUS 

 TSF assessment submission dates (as 

applicable) over the last three yearsa

 All quarterly report submission dates 

over the last three yearsa

PLUS 

 Grant application submission date 

PLUS 

 TSF assessment submission dates (as 

applicable) over the last three yearsa
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 20 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Special Submission Instructions

The Regional CAP Coordinators will provide this data to the states via records from ND Grants. States also have access to this information

and may verify it. 

No submission is required

IFMIS, CIS, PARS, and ND Grants are all official FEMA systems of record and are the only evidence that will be accepted.

NOTES:

a New CAP-SSSE grant applicants will not have an administrative grant history. They must submit their TSF Assessment on-time to enter the program as Foundational with a 

mandatory assessment after one year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using those grants to determine 

their tier for this characteristic.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 21 

I.E. Ability to Overmatch

This characteristic intends to measure that the state funds additional floodplain management program capacity outside of CAP-SSSE 

funded activities and staff. In this context, in-kind matches refer to state-funded labor hours, travel costs, or other direct costs that are 

incurred in direct support of eligible CAP-SSSE activities and costs. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 2 CFR Section

200.306 which allows for cost matching as a method for determining award eligibility. Furthermore, this characteristic represents best 

practices proposed by Principles 1 and 9 of ASFPM’s Guiding Principles for Effective State Programs which attribute effectiveness to stable 

and adequate state resources.

Table 5: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic I.E. Ability to Overmatch. 

Foundational Proficient Advanced 

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The three-year average cost match is 

equal to 25% as required by the grant 

 The three-year average cost match is 

greater than 25%a

 The three-year average cost match is 

greater than 40%b

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show overall 

achievement across the three PoPs. Examples of such evidence are listed below.

PLEASE NOTE that while there is no restriction on the types of costs allowed for the non-federal cost match requirement, in-kind 

contributions must specifically adhere to the “Funding Restrictions” and “Eligible Activities” sections of the CAP-SSSE NOFO.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 22 

Foundational Proficient Advanced 

This data will come from ND Grants and be provided by FEMA

If a state can demonstrate a cost match above the benchmark (outside of what is tracked in ND Grants), they may provide supplemental 

financial documentation (e.g., time sheets, payroll reports, closeout documentation, quarterly reports) as evidence that clearly 

demonstrates the following details: 

 Resource (e. g., employee name/number, contract) 

 Hours spent on floodplain management activities in the last three years, (including a description of those activities)

 Hourly pay rate, and 

 Calculation of the total dollar amount relative to their federal CAP award (i.e., the percent match) 

Part of this data will come from ND Grants and be provided by FEMA

Special Submission Instructions 

No submission is required

NOTES:

a New CAP-SSSE grant applicants will not have a cost match history, so the current year’s anticipated cost match will be considered for assessing this characteristic and 

will be reconfirmed at the time of awarding the grant. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using those 

grants to determine their tier for this characteristic.

b The Advanced benchmark is reduced from 50% state match to 40% state match for the period of July 2022 to June 2025, to offset the impact of increased CAP-SSSE 

funding. 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application4 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a standardized manner for tracking and reporting all overmatch/in-kind contributions.

4 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 23 

II. Capability

The characteristics in this category demonstrate that states enhance the professional expertise of 

their staff and can adequately educate communities on floodplain management topics.

The Capability category encompasses nine characteristics:

A. Investment in Professional Development 

B. Communication with Communities on NFIP Topics

C. Basic Floodplain Management Training Coverage (Mandatory in 2026)

D. Ability to Deliver a Variety of Training

E. Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain Management Regulations

F. Substantial Damage Program

G. Percent of Participating Communities

H. Addressing Equity in Floodplain Management (Mandatory in 2026)

I. Improving Resilience to Climate change and Future Conditions (Mandatory in 2026)

The following subsections discuss each characteristic in detail.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 24 

II.A. Investment in Professional Development

This characteristic intends to measure that the NFIP State Coordinator and floodplain management program staff are investing in continual 

capability building, learning, and upskilling. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Section 60.25(b)(12) and 

Principle 9 of ASFPM’s Guiding Principles for Effective State Programs, which include details and requirements around training 

participating, capability building, and professional growth.

Table 6: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.A. Investment in Professional Development. 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The designated State NFIP Coordinator 

has education/ experience in the 

floodplain management profession

 The state must show 8 verifiable hours 

of floodplain management-related 

training (i.e., floodplain management 

and other related trainings) per threeyear cycle, for every 1 full-time 

equivalent (FTE). To calculate the 

requirement, the state should consider 

the total personnel hours spent 

performing activities that are funded by 

CAP (federal share plus state match)a

 For every FTE covered by the CAP grant 

(including new hires), the state can show 

the same number of CFMs and/or 

advanced professional certifications in 

sciences, engineering, planning, building 

construction, architecture, program 

management, or related discipline

OR 

 7 or more years of experience in 

floodplain management plus a 

bachelor’s degree (instead of 

certification) 

AND 

 Eight hours of continuing education per 

FTE per year

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. Examples of such evidence are listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS”, which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 25 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

One of the following:

 Degree/certification in land, water, or 

environmental management; building 

sciences; public works; geography; 

hydrology; or engineering related field 

(submit photocopy of degree, 

certification, or transcript)

 Proof of at least two years of experience 

in any field listed above

 Resume or proof of employment with job 

description

One of the following:

 Documentation of continuing education 

units (CEUs)/continuing education 

courses (CECs) from a relevant 

certification organization, totaling 8 for 

each FTE covered by the CAP grant for 

the most recent assessment cycle

 Flyers or materials stating continuing 

education credit (CEC)/continuing 

education unit (CEU) information for 

trainings attended or led, totaling 8 for 

each FTE covered by the CAP grant 

 Hours spent being a mentor or mentee 

in a formal mentoring program (e.g., 

ASFPM mentoring program or CAP 

Knowledge Leader b) totaling 8 for each 

FTE covered by the CAP grant

 A combination of the above totaling 8 for 

each FTE covered by the CAP grant

 Proficient evidence totaling 8 hours for 

each FTE covered by the CAP grant per 

year

PLUS 

 Documentation of one certification from 

a certification organization OR advanced 

degree paperwork (submit photocopy of 

degree, certification, or transcript) for 

each FTE funded by the CAP grant

OR 

 Resume or proof of employment with job 

description for each FTE funded by the 

CAP grant

NOTES:

a An FTE equals 1912 hours per year worked by permanent full or part-time state staff. Every 5,736 hours (1912 X 3) spent on activities covered by the grant requires 8 

hours of training to occur during the three-year period. Any combination of staff can contribute to the 8 verifiable hours of training per FTE. This includes one individual 

taking all hours of training. This characteristic does not require that training be split evenly across staff or across years. Refer to the personnel list in the State Activity 

Planning and Pricing Tool to verify hours. 

b Keep emails/screenshots/detailed notes to document an active role as a CAP Knowledge Leader.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 26 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application5 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Participation in trainings that offer CECs.

 Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) exam preparation and exam costs.

 Development of an internal training plan and staff professional development tracker.

 Development of a list of preferred trainings based on job profile that the state program will support for professional development.

 Participation in mentoring relationships/programs with other land use professionals.

5 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 27 

II.B. Communication with Communities on NFIP Topics

This characteristic intends to measure how a state broadly pushes information to communicate about floodplain management, mitigation, 

and flood insurance and remains connected with all NFIP participating communities within the state on a frequent basis. Inclusion of this 

characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(3), 60.25(b)(4), and 60.25(b)(5) which set forth state duties for 

disseminating flood risk and floodplain management information and guidance to community officials.

Table 7: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.B. Communication with Communities on NFIP Topics. 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency 

communicates broadly with 

participating communities at least 

once each year

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency 

communicates with all participating 

communities in the state on at least a 

quarterly (four times per year) basis each 

year

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency has a 

strategic communications plan and can 

provide documentation that the plan is 

implemented 

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. Examples of such evidence are listed below. For this characteristic, 

states are required to submit evidence showing achievement in each of the three PoPs. All examples are potential options of evidence, 

unless noted with “PLUS”, which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 28 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

 If a state does not qualify for 

Proficient or Advanced, FEMA will 

pull supporting evidence from 

FEMA records and previously 

submitted quarterly reports to 

support the Foundational tier for 

this characteristic

 Evidence of four or more state-designed 

and deployed push communications 

(e.g., newsletters, email announcements, 

etc.) occurring at least once per quarter 

with all participating communities in the 

state. FEMA can pull data from CIS to 

support the proficient benchmark unless 

the state would like to submit their own 

evidence.

 Proficient evidence

PLUS 

 State’s written communications plan

(developed or updated within at least the 

last three years), inclusive of at least the 

target audience, objectives, and tactics. 

PLUS 

 Evidence of implementing activities listed in 

the Plan, including the implementation 

schedule and/or communications products 

such as, brochures, a website, newsletters, 

outreach calendar, etc.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 29 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application6 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development and dissemination of a recurring (e.g., quarterly) newsletter that reaches all communities.

 Creation of NFIP-related content that is integrated (documentation required into other recurring communications that are pushed 

out by the state (within or outside of the NFIP Coordinator’s office). 

 Development of a communications plan/strategy, including a detailed implementation plan. 

 Delivery of “CAC-light” or other type of phone survey in every community.

 Development and execution of public art or signage projects.

 Development and dissemination of virtual reality or application-based outreach.

 Development and execution of a social media strategy/campaign (e.g., utilizing listserv)

6 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 30 

II.C. Basic Floodplain Management Training Coverage (New)

This characteristic intends to measure that the state has the capability and expertise to deliver basic floodplain management training to 

communities on a regular cycle. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(3), 60.25(b)(4), and 

60.25(b)(12) which set forth state duties and expectations for providing guidance to communities. Furthermore, this characteristic 

represents best practices proposed by Principle 8 of ASFPM’s Guiding Principles for Effective State Programs which attribute effectiveness 

to how states provide training and technical assistance to communities. This characteristic will be mandatory in 2026 and voluntary for 

states who can meet the benchmark in the 2024 Off-Cycle.

Table 8: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.C. Basic Floodplain Management Training Coverage.

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: 

 At least 10% of the communities in the 

state have received a basic floodplain 

management traininga (e.g., E/L273, 

abridged 273, floodplain management 

“101”, etc.) from the stateb at some 

point in the last five periods of 

performance

 At least 30% of the communities in the 

state have received a basic floodplain 

management training (e.g., E/L273, 

abridged 273, floodplain management 

“101”, etc.) from the state at some 

point in the last five periods of 

performance

 At least 65% of the communities in the 

state have received a basic floodplain 

management training (e.g., E/L273, 

abridged 273, floodplain management 

“101”, etc.) from the state at some 

point in the last five periods of 

performance

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the previous five PoPs. Examples of such evidence are listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS”, which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 31 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

One of the following:

 Training plan which corresponds to 

“Floodplain Management” workshop 

entries in CIS

 Records of training classes held, 

including attendee sign-in sheets (or 

similar) with dates and topic titles

One of the following:

 Training plan which corresponds to 

“Floodplain Management” workshop 

entries in CIS

 Records of training classes held, 

including attendee sign-in sheets (or 

similar) with dates and topic titles

One of the following:

 Training plan which corresponds to 

“Floodplain Management” workshop 

entries in CIS

 Records of training classes held, 

including attendee sign-in sheets (or 

similar) with dates and topic titles

NOTES:

a Basic floodplain management trainings must include at least overviews of the following elements: using flood hazard maps, floodplain management regulations, 

substantial improvement and substantial damage, administering and enforcing the local floodplain management ordinance, permitting, and basic flood insurance rating 

concepts. One-on-one conversations/trainings with a community also satisfy this requirement (enter it as a workshop with one community in CIS instead of a GTA),

b Training taught by others is allowable as long as it is directed, reviewed, and/or co-instructed by the NFIP Coordinating Office. Note, training led by FEMA or FEMA 

contractors, including Community Engagement and Risk Communication (CERC) and Production and Technical Services (PTS), is not eligible, because the characteristic is 

specifically measuring the State NFIP Coordinating Agency’s capability and expertise. Training conducted under the Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Grant is also not 

eligible.

New CAP-SSSE grant applicants will not have a history of providing basic training, so the training plan for the current year will be the basis of the assessment with a 

mandatory reassessment after one year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using those grants, including 

the training plan for the current year, to determine their tier for this characteristic.

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application7 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a training plan. 

7 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 32 

II.D. Ability to Deliver a Variety of Training

This characteristic intends to measure that the state has the capability and expertise to deliver a variety of trainings covering a range of 

topics (beyond basic training which is the focus of characteristic II.C). Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR 

Sections 60.25(b)(3), 60.25(b)(4), and 60.25(b)(12) which set forth state duties and expectations for providing guidance to communities. 

Furthermore, this characteristic represents best practices proposed by Principle 8 of ASFPM’s Guiding Principles for Effective State 

Programs which attribute effectiveness to how states provide training and technical assistance to communities.

Table 9: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.D. Ability to Deliver a Variety of Training

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column listed below: 

Note: Multiple, shorter classes on the same topic can be used to reach the 6 hour topic minimum

 The state coordinator’s officea initiates, 

directs, and pays for training topics 

covering at least 6 training hoursb for 

two topicsc in the three-year cycled

 The state coordinator’s officea initiates, 

directs, and pays for training covering at 

least three different NFIP topics (6 hours 

each) in the three-year cycle

 The state coordinator’s officea initiates, 

directs, and pays for training covering at 

least five different NFIP topics (6 hours 

each) in the three-year cycle

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. Examples of such evidence are listed below.

One of the following:

 Training plan which corresponds to 

workshop entries in CIS

 Records of training classes held, 

including attendee sign-in sheets (or 

similar) with dates and topic titles

One of the following:

 Training plan which corresponds to 

workshop entries in CIS

 Records of training classes held, 

including attendee sign-in sheets (or 

similar) with dates and topic titles

One of the following:

 Training plan which corresponds to 

workshop entries in CIS

 Records of training classes held, 

including attendee sign-in sheets (or 

similar) with dates and topic titles

NOTES:

a Training taught by others is allowable as long as it is directed, reviewed, and/or co-instructed by the NFIP Coordinating Office. Note, training led by FEMA or FEMA 

contractors, including CERC and PTS, is not included. Training conducted under the CTP Grant is also not eligible.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 33 

b To get credit for a training topic, the state must demonstrate that it has conducted training for six hours on that topic. It may demonstrate that those six hours have been 

achieved through a combination of methods including 1-hour webinars devoted to the topic, portions of lengthier agendas devoted to that topic, etc. (such as mapping, 

insurance, Community Rating System (CRS), etc.). 

c Each training topic is defined as six hours on a specialized floodplain management topic (e.g., substantial damage, higher standards, CRS, no-rise analyses, etc.) or other 

related topic (e.g., mapping, insurance, etc.)

d New CAP-SSSE grant applicants will not have a history for training variety, so the training plan for the current year will be the basis of the assessment with a mandatory 

reassessment after one year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using those grants, including the training 

plan for the current year, to determine their tier for this characteristic.

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application8 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a training plan.

 Development and delivery of a new training topic.

 Development of a training assessment and update cycle to ensure training topics and content are up to date and relevant to 

state/community needs.

 Creation of an assessment plan that identifies which trainings are effective in the state, through the development and deployment 

of pre- and post-training surveys/knowledge checks.

8 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 34 

II.E. Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain Management 

Regulations 

This characteristic intends to measure that the state has a process in place to ensure that, through the use of appropriately updated and 

tailorable model ordinances, it is satisfying the requirement from 44 CFR Section 60.25(b)(3) to guide and assist county and municipal 

public bodies and agencies in developing, implementing, and maintaining local floodplain management regulations. 

Table 10: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.E. Process for Reviewing and Improving Model Floodplain 

Management Regulations

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The State NFIP Coordinating 

Agency provides a model 

ordinance that meets at least 

minimum NFIP standards

 The state meets the Foundational 

benchmark

AND 

 The state maintains and updates one or 

more model ordinances which take into 

account any changes in the state or local 

regulatory environment

AND 

 The state performs model ordinance 

review and updates (if needed) at least 

every five years

 The state meets Foundational benchmark

AND 

 The state maintains and updates a collection 

(e.g., digital/electronic collection – files, folders, 

or more interactive tools that can be given to 

communities via email or the internet to help 

them construct their ordinance) of model 

ordinances which take into account any 

changes in the state or local regulatory 

environment. This collection of model 

ordinances must specifically include model 

ordinances with higher standards

AND 

 The state performs model ordinance review and 

updates (if needed) at least every three years
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 35 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. Examples of such evidence are listed below. For this characteristic, 

states are required to submit evidence showing achievement over the course of the three PoPs. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS”, which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:

 A state model ordinance that 

meets NFIP minimums, with 

date of last update and 

instructions to communities 

included in document

 Foundational evidence

PLUS 

 Process documentation/SOP that shows 

a five-year update cycle, including the 

dates, findings, and descriptions of 

updates performed during the last model 

ordinance review

 Proof of review/update on a five-year 

cycle, such as signed and dated review 

checklists, and previous dated versions 

of the model ordinance, etc.

 Foundational evidence

PLUS 

 Process documentation/SOP that shows a threeyear update cycle and integration of higher 

standards, including the dates, findings, and 

descriptions of updates performed during the 

last model ordinance review

 Proof of review/update on a three-year cycle, 

such as signed and dated review checklists, and 

previous dated versions of the model ordinance, 

etc.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 36 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application9 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Coordination with state legislature to incorporate an update/development cycle for model ordinance(s) into state 

regulations/requirements. 

 Development of a standardized process/SOP for reviewing and updating model ordinances on a recurring cycle.

 Creation and facilitation of a review panel/body of federal, state, and local representatives to conduct reviews and updates to 

model ordinances.

 Development and execution of a monitoring process for ensuring that new state legislative proposals comply with the NFIP.

9 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 37 

II.F. Substantial Damage Program

This characteristic intends to measure that the state is working towards or has implemented statewide Substantial Damage Plan(s) and 

encourages communities to do the same. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(3) and 

60.25(b)(5) which set forth state duties for guiding communities and individuals to develop in a manner that complies with the local 

floodplain management ordinance and the NFIP minimum standards. Furthermore, this characteristic represents best practices proposed 

by Principle 6 of ASFPM’s Guiding Principles for Effective State Programs which attribute effectiveness to state flood mitigation and recovery 

strategies. 

Table 11: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.F. Substantial Damage Program

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 State must have a 

documented plan for 

substantial damage (SD) (in 

any template the state 

desires) with goals, 

objectives, and activities.

 State must have a documented plan with 

sufficient detail to ensure it is implementable 

and operational (e.g., includes specific 

processes and responsibilities, timelines, 

templates, tools, etc.)

 The state meets Proficient benchmark

AND 

 The State’s SD Plan includes advanced 

elements such as a list of target communities 

and areas and tailored processes for those 

communities, including conducting 

Substantial Damage Administrative 

Procedures (SDAP) Workshops and Disaster 

Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) 1206) 

Workshops for communities.

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. Examples of such evidence are listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS”, which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 38 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Documented Substantial 

Damage Plan, with

 Goals 

 Objectives

 Activities

State Substantial Damage Plan that answers the 

following five questions and includes detailed 

planning and process documentation for:

 How and when do you communicate with 

communities on Substantial Damage in an 

active disaster?

 What training do you provide for communities 

and other State Officials on Substantial 

Damage Pre-Disaster/Post-Disaster?

 How do you support/validate communities’ 

depiction of market value, repair cost, 

depreciation and other values used in 

Substantial Damage determinations?

 What is the follow-up mechanism for 

enforcement of substantial damage 

determinations?

 How do you coordinate with the State Hazard 

Mitigation Officer (SHMO) on Substantial 

Damage?

 Proficient evidence

PLUS 

 Local Substantial Damage Plans for targeted 

communities which should include 

community profiles, characterizes the 

potential for SD, and any community-specific 

support needs and/or processes for 

executing SD/substantial improvement (SI) 

activities after a disaster
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 39 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application10 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a state SD plan and coordination to incorporate it into the state hazard mitigation plan.

 Development of SD plans for non-flood hazards (e.g., earthquakes).

 Development and execution of an SD pilot project that could help determine a statewide process for state or local SD plan/SOP

development.

 Development and delivery of SD training/mentoring to Foundational or Below Foundational SD states.

 Participation in SD training/mentoring from Advanced SD states. 

 Development and implementation of SD plans for all communities, not just targeted communities.

 Development and dissemination/roll out of SD quick guide for communities to use.

 Coordination and integration of SD within the state disaster response team (DRT)/emergency response team (ERT)/community 

emergency response team (CERT) for ensuring that new state legislative proposals comply with the NFIP.

10 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 40 

II.G. Percent of Participating Communities

This characteristic intends to measure that the state is actively working to increase the percentage of communities with mapped risk that 

participate in the NFIP. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Section 60.25(b)(2) which focus on promoting and 

guiding community participation in the NFIP.

Table 12: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.G. Percent of Participating Communities

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the target via the FEMA-provided data in bullet A. OR they can meet 

the descriptions outlined in both bullets B. and C. 

This 

characteristic 

has no 

Foundational 

benchmark.

Use A, or prove both B and C

 A. At least 80% of communities with mapped risk are 

participating in the NFIP at the time the data is pulled 

(FEMA-provided data)

 B. The State NFIP Coordinating Agency has completed 

an analysis of the non-participating communities within 

the last three years 

 C. The State NFIP Coordinating Agency has conducted 

outreach to all non-participating communities at least 

once in the last three years

Use A, or prove both B and C

 A. At least 90% of communities with mapped risk are 

participating in the NFIP at the time the data is pulled 

(FEMA-provided data)

 B. The State NFIP Coordinating Agency has completed 

an analysis of the non-participating communities within 

the last three years 

 C. The State NFIP Coordinating Agency has a written 

action plan for expanding community participation and 

conducts outreach to all non-participating communities 

at least once per year

Evidence 

States may choose to use the FEMA-provided data and not submit anything OR they may submit sufficient evidence as outlined. For this 

characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show overall achievement across the three PoPs.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 41 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

This 

characteristic 

has no 

Foundational 

benchmark.

 Use CIS participating communities report (provided by 

FEMA) as of October 1 of each year

OR submit all of the following: 

 Analysis of the non-participating communities and their 

reasoning for not joining the NFIP, including the date 

that the analysis was conducted

 Documentation of outreach (email blasts, letters, etc.) 

to all non-participating communities in the state in the 

last three-year period (can be pulled from CIS-general 

technical assistance (GTA) Report)

 Use CIS participating communities report (provided by 

FEMA) as of October 1 of each year

OR submit all of the following: 

 Analysis of the non-participating communities and their 

reasoning for not joining the NFIP, including the date 

that the analysis was conducted

 A state action plan for expanding NFIP participation

 Documentation of outreach (email, letters, etc.) to all 

non-participating communities in the state in the last 

year (can be pulled from CIS-GTA Report)

Special Submission Instructions

FEMA HQ will provide CIS report data to states. Email all supplemental documentation to the Regional CAP Coordinator using the 

following naming convention. 

This 

characteristic 

has no 

Foundational 

benchmark.

No submission is required if a State uses the tier assignment 

from the FEMA-provided data. 

Those who do not meet the percent benchmark may 

choose to submit the analysis and outreach documentation 

outlined above.

Example: MD_Capability_G_Proficient_Outreach

No submission is required if a State uses the tier assignment 

from the FEMA-provided data. 

Those who do not meet the percent benchmark may 

choose to submit the analysis and outreach documentation 

outlined above.

Example: MD_Capability_G_Advanced_ActionPlan 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 42 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application11 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of an assessment of all non-participating communities.

 Development and implementation of an outreach plan/strategy for all non-participating communities 

11 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 43 

II.H. Addressing Equity in Floodplain Management (New)

This characteristic intends to measure if and how the State NFIP Coordinating Agencies are considering equity and assisting vulnerable 

populations disproportionately impacted by disasters. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with Goal 1 of the FEMA Strategic 

Plan: Instill Equity as a Foundation of Emergency Management and more specifically, Objective 1.3: Achieve Equitable Outcomes for Those 

We Serve. Furthermore, this characteristic reflects the Justice 40 goals in Executive Order 14008. This characteristic will be mandatory in 

2026 and voluntary for states who can meet the benchmark in the 2024 Off-Cycle. 

Table 13: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.H. Addressing Equity in Floodplain Management

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 State incorporates equitya data (e.g.,

Climate and Environmental Justice 

Screening Tool (CEJST), Community 

Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZs)) into 

planning and prioritization. State use of 

the Community Engagement 

Prioritization Tool (CEPTool) to inform 

annual SOWs satisfies this benchmark 

 The state meets Foundational 

benchmark

AND 

 State prioritizes and tracks assistance 

for disadvantaged/underservedb

communities and measuresc the 

impact 

 The state meets Proficient benchmark

AND 

 State has implemented equity-focused 

initiatives intended to tailor floodplain 

management activities to vulnerable 

populations and their communities and/or 

can demonstrate that has investedd a 

cumulative total of at least 40% of its federal 

awards in the last three periods of 

performance in disadvantaged/ underserved 

communities 

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. Examples of such evidence are listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS”, which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 44 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

 Evidence of consistent use of the 

CEPTool, which utilizes SVI data, such 

as a highlighted list of communities 

targeted for outreach/activities in 

certain SVI ranges

 One or more documents highlighting 

the inclusion of equity dataa in plans, 

staff training, guidelines, or other 

internal materials 

 Established feedback channels, such 

as surveys, central feedback collector, 

message board, etc. for underserved 

communities to offer feedback and ask 

for help

 Foundational evidence

PLUS 

 Documented metrics (e.g., target 

percent of activities provided to 

communities with an SVI of 0.5 or 

higher, identified as “disadvantaged” 

in CEJST, or identified as a CDRZ), 

with methods for tracking progress

 Documented “equity strategy” that 

includes how the state measures and 

defines “underserved” and its plan to 

improve equitable resilience 

outcomes for underserved 

communities 

 Foundational and Proficient evidence

PLUS 

 Documentation describing the goals, vision, 

and expected outcomes of equity-focused 

initiatives that the state has implemented. 

This can be a formal plan, briefing slides, an 

informal write-up, etc.

NOTES:

a Equity is defined in Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2021) as the 

consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities of color, persons who belong 

to communities that may face discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity (including members of the LGBTQ+ community); persons with 

disabilities, persons who may face discrimination based on their religion, national origin and persons with limited English proficiency, and persons who live in rural areas 

that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life. FEMA uses this definition of equity and aims to assess 

and address barriers to equity within its programs and policies with respect to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, advancing Goal 1 of the 2022-2026 FEMA 

Strategic Plan to Instill Equity as a Foundation of Emergency Management.

b FEMA’s definition of disadvantaged/underserved communities is consistent with the White House’s 2021 Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative. In 

the absence of a state-preferred index or approach that incorporates appropriate data and variables to determine whether a given community is disadvantaged, FEMA 

prefers the use of CEJST, CDRZs, or the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to identify disadvantaged communities. Communities identified as “disadvantaged” in CEJST, 

are identified as a CDRZ, or has an average SVI score higher than 0.5 or where more than 50% of its census tracts have a score higher than 0.5, are considered 

disadvantaged. Average SVI is calculated by averaging the census tract scores within the SFHA (or the entire jurisdiction if there is no digital SFHA available).

c To meet the proficient benchmark, the state can track assistance and measure impact using its chosen methodology as long as it can clearly show which communities in 

the state are disadvantaged and if/how they have benefited from the states’ assistance. 

d In alignment with the White House’s 2021 Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative and other FEMA program benefits methodologies, investments 

are defined as those CAP-SSSE activities that the state plans and executes, including mapping coordination assistance, other ordinance assistance and reviews, 

community training/workshops, compliance audits, outreach, and other direct technical assistance such as CRS support, compliance assistance, or general program 

support. To demonstrate that the state has met the 40% threshold, it must track the staff hours/personnel costs or contract costs spent on activities in disadvantaged 

communities.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 45 

II.I. Improving Resilience to Climate Change and Future Conditions (New)

This characteristic intends to measure if and how the State NFIP Coordinating Agency is taking into account and incorporating future 

conditions into its planning, operations, and programming to prioritize community resilience. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is 

aligned with Goal 2 of the FEMA Strategic Plan: Lead Whole of Community in Climate Resilience. This characteristic is mandatory by 2026 

and voluntary for states who can meet the benchmark in the 2024 Off-Cycle. 

Table 17: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic II.I. Improving Resilience to Climate Change and Future Conditions

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency 

utilizes future conditions dataa to 

inform planning and prioritization 

decisions

 The state meets Foundational 

benchmark

AND 

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency 

promotes climate literacy through 

incorporating climate/future conditions 

information into engagement, 

assistance, and educational outreach to 

communities 

 The state meets Proficient benchmark

AND 

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency has 

established, or is a party to, state programs 

and initiatives to mitigate future risk

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. Examples of such evidence are listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS”, which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 46 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

 Documentation of how future 

conditions dataa is used to drive 

prioritization of engagements like 

community assistance visits (CAVs), 

technical assistance, auditing, 

training, etc. with communities. This 

could include annual specific 

workplans for communities facing 

future risks

 Foundational evidence 

PLUS 

 Evidence of communicating future risks 

to citizens, such as a publicly accessible 

website, future risk visualization tools, 

or outreach materials (e.g., fact sheets, 

flyers, newsletters, etc.)

 Evidence of participating in the 

development and/or implementation of 

state hazard mitigation plans and/or 

climate action plans that integrate 

future flood conditions, such as 

planning meeting minutes, authorship 

credit/citation in a published plan, etc.

 Foundational and Proficient evidence 

PLUS 

 Evidence of participation in implementing 

programs or initiatives that address future 

risks, such as managed retreat, rebates for 

mitigation activities, nature-based solutions, 

etc., through documented meeting minutes, 

enforcement authority, involvement in funding 

decisions, etc. 

 Evidence of promotion of adoption of higher 

standards at the community level, such as 

letters to community officials, other outreach 

materials outlining the benefits of adopting 

higher standards, email communications 

discussing higher standards adoption, etc.

NOTES:

a Future conditions data is not prescriptively defined in recognition of the rapidly evolving and emerging data, tools, and scientific approaches that are influencing this 

subject matter. Some examples of future risk data and tools could include use of the climate-informed science approach to floodplain management as depicted in the 

implementing instructions for the Federal Flood Risk Management Standards (FFRMS), NOAA’s digital coast tools such as the Sea Level Rise (SLR) Viewer, FEMA’s 500-

year/0.2 percent annual chance floodplain delineation, comprehensive future land use plans, coastal and riverine erosion data, and/or long-term weather and climatology 

forecasts from either federal or state sources. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Performance Measures 47 

III. Performance Measures 

The characteristics in this category demonstrate that the State NFIP Coordinating Agency has a 

history of performing at or above expectations while advancing the goals of the NFIP and effectively 

administers the programmatic requirements of the CAP grant.

The Performance Measures category encompasses four characteristics:

A. Communities Engaged

B. Higher Standards Adoption

C. Community Compliance Improvement

D. Map Adoption (New)

These characteristics represent the national Floodplain Management Program’s primary 

performance measures and are included in the TSF per 2 CFR Sections 200.202 and 200.206, 

which set forth requirements for grantee performance measurement and reporting. The following 

subsections discuss each characteristic in detail.

States are allowed four months after the end of each CAP-SSSE Period of Performance (PoP) to close 

out the grant and make final inputs into CIS. All CIS entries must be made by October 28th in order 

to count towards final performance measure determinations, which are made in November each 

year.

Performance targets must be met within the one-year PoP (July 1 – June 30) even if the state 

receives an extension. FEMA recognizes that circumstances could arise during a state’s PoP that 

may necessitate a revision to the state’s agreed upon performance targets. In general, unanticipated 

events, schedule delays, or levels of resource intensity are acceptable reasons for target revisions. If 

a state would like to request a revision to one or more performance targets, it may be done once per 

PoP and must be received by the Regional Office prior to April 30.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 48 

III.A. Communities Engaged

This characteristic intends to measure the number of engagements executed by the state with an agreed-upon number of communities 

annually. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Section 60.25(b) which set forth requirements for engaging 

communities in floodplain management issues. 

This measure is calculated by counting each community (both participating and non-participating) that has been engaged by the state at 

least once during the period of performance. The national communities engaged measure considers all types of engagement except the 

“Other” and “Outreach Inquiry” technical assistance types which are counted as part of characteristic II.B. Additionally, Regions may have 

specific goals for certain types of engagements that must be incorporated into states’ plans and efforts to meet their annual targets.

Table 18: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic III.A. Communities Engaged

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The state meets the “Expected” target 

for Communities Engaged in at least two 

of the past three yearsa

There is no Proficient benchmark for this 

characteristic 

 The state meets the “Excellence” target 

for Communities Engaged in at least two 

of the past three yearsa. This target 

should be 10% above the “Expected” 

target

Evidence

FEMA will pull supporting evidence from FEMA records and provide it to the Region for validation before assigning a corresponding tier for 

this characteristic. For this characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show overall achievement across the three PoPs.

 CIS data reports (combined CAV/CAC, GTA, Ordinance Review, and Training/Workshop reports to determine number of communities 

engaged in the FY)

Special Submission Instructions 

FEMA HQ will provide state performance targets and final results from the CAP Dashboard. 

No submission is required
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 49 

NOTES:

a New CAP-SSSE grant applicants will not have a communities engaged history so they will enter the program as Foundational, with a mandatory reassessment after one 

year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using those grants to determine their tier for this characteristic.

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application12 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Delivery of additional core activities that contribute to the metric (e.g., CAVs, CACs, trainings, ordinance reviews, and general 

technical assistance). 

12 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 50 

III.B.Higher Standards Adoption

This characteristic intends to measure that the state influences an agreed-upon number of communities to take action to exceed the 

minimum regulatory requirements each year. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(3) and 

60.25(b)(5) which set forth state requirements for guiding communities in implementing land use and development standards. 

Furthermore, this characteristic represents best practices proposed by Principles 5 of ASFPM’s Guiding Principles for Effective State 

Programs which attributes effectiveness to states guiding development away from flood prone areas.

This measure is calculated by counting the number of participating communities with “more restrictive ordinance” selected in CIS, 

indicating the community adopted higher standards. It is the responsibility of the State Coordinator to verify on a community-by-community 

basis that each community has adopted the higher standard(s) in their local ordinance. 

Table 19: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic III.B. Higher Standards Adoption

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The state meets the “Expected” target 

for Higher Standards Adoption in at least 

two of the past three yearsa

There is no Proficient benchmark for this 

characteristic 

 The state meets the “Excellence” target 

of 75% for Higher Standards Adoption in 

at least two of the past three yearsa

Evidence

FEMA will pull supporting evidence from FEMA records and provide it to the Region for validation before assigning a corresponding tier for 

this characteristic. For this characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show overall achievement across the three PoPs.

 Workshop Assistance Report (CIS) There is no Proficient benchmark for this 

characteristic

 Workshop Assistance Report (CIS)

Special Submission Instructions 

FEMA HQ will provide state performance targets and final results from the CAP Dashboard. 

No submission is required
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 51 

NOTES:

a New CAP-SSSE grant applicants entering the program in or after 2023 will not have a history with this measure, so they will enter the program as Foundational with a 

mandatory assessment after one year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants in or after 2023 with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using those 

grants for this characteristic.

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application13 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a strategy for higher standards outreach and promotion

 Development of higher standards outreach and education products (e.g., guides, fact sheets, website content, etc.) 

 Development of standard processes for integrating higher standards promotion into mapping coordination activities

13 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 52 

III.C.Community Compliance Improvement

This characteristic intends to measure that a state is auditing and providing technical assistance to communities on a regular five-year 

cycle. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(3) and 60.25(b)(8) which set forth the state’s 

duties related to assessing community compliance with the NFIP.

This measure is calculated based on the number of NFIP communities that have been assessed in the last five years by the state (i.e., a 

Community Assistance Contact (CAC) or Community Assistance Visit (CAV) was opened or closed with findings in the last five years). 

Table 20: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic III.C. Community Compliance Improvement

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The state has audited at least 10% of its 

communities in the last five periods of 

performancea

 The state has audited at least 25% of its 

communities in the last five periods of 

performancea

 The state has audited at least 55% of its 

communities in the last five periods of 

performancea

Evidence

FEMA will pull supporting evidence from FEMA records and provide it to the Region for validation before assigning a corresponding tier for 

this characteristic. For this characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show overall achievement across the three PoPs.

 CAV/CAC Findings Report from CIS  CAV/CAC Findings Report from CIS  CAV/CAC Findings Report from CIS

Special Submission Instructions 

FEMA HQ will provide state performance targets and final results from the CAP Dashboard

No submission is required

NOTES:

a New CAP-SSSE grant applicants entering the program in or after 2023 will not have a history with this measure, so they will enter the program as Foundational with a 

mandatory assessment after one year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants in or after 2023 with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using those 

grants for this characteristic. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 53 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application14 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a five-year compliance strategy

 Delivery of additional CACs and CAVs

14 Subject to Regional approval
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 54 

III.D. Map Adoption (New)

This characteristic intends to measure how states are supporting communities in adopting updated flood risk information. Inclusion of this 

characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(3) and 60.25(b)(6) which set forth the state’s duties related to assisting 

with the development and local adoption of updated flood risk information and measuring and reporting performance.

This measure is calculated based on the number of communities within the state that adopt new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) by the 

effective date. 

Table 21: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic III.D. Map Adoption

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below. 

 The state meets the “Expected” target 

for Map Adoption at 93% of communities 

adopting new FIRMs on time in at least 

two of the past three yearsa

There is no Proficient benchmark for this 

characteristic

 The state meets the “Excellence” target 

for Map Adoption at 98% of communities 

adopting new FIRMs on time in at least 

two of the past three yearsa

Evidence

FEMA will pull supporting evidence from FEMA records and provide it to the Region for validation before assigning a corresponding tier for 

this characteristic. For this characteristic, evidence from each PoP must show overall achievement across the three PoPs.

 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 

Effective Date in the Mapping 

Information Platform (MIP) + community 

ordinance adoption date in CIS

There is no Proficient benchmark for this 

characteristic

 FIRM Effective Date Data in the MIP + 

community ordinance adoption date in 

CIS 

Special Submission Instructions 

FEMA HQ will provide state performance targets and final results from the CAP Dashboard

No submission is required
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 55 

NOTES: a New CAP-SSSE grant applicants entering the program in or after 2023 will not have a history with this measure, so they will enter the program as Foundational 

with a mandatory assessment after one year. Returning CAP-SSSE grant applicants in or after 2023 with any active grants in the last three years will be assessed using 

those grants for this characteristic. 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application15 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development and delivery of outreach and education for communities with Letter of Final Determination (LFD) dates that 

increases their understanding of the adoption requirements.

 Delivery of additional technical assistance, outreach, or training to communities with scheduled map releases

15 Subject to Regional approval
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 56 

IV. Planning and Coordination

The characteristics in this category demonstrate that the State NFIP Coordinator’s Agency 

successfully coordinates across agencies to ensure that floodplain management and insurance is 

integrated into the state’s priorities.

The Planning and Coordination category encompasses seven characteristics:

A. Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products

B. Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the State

C. Coordination with OFAs (other than FEMA)

D. Coordination with Insurance Professionals

E. Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations

F. Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures

G. Strategic Planning (Mandatory in 2026)

The following subsections discuss each characteristic in detail.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 57 

IV.A. Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products

This characteristic intends to measure that the state increases awareness and understanding of flood risks in its communities by 

participating in the delineation of riverine and coastal flood-prone areas, whenever possible, and disseminating flood risk data and 

information. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Section 60.25(b) which sets forth several state’s duties related 

to raising flood risk awareness among communities. 

Table 22: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic IV.A. Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below. Note: It is 

acceptable for the state to submit evidence of activities conducted by contractors so long as the activities were state led/directed.

 The State NFIP Coordinating Office Agency 

participates in providing FEMA Risk 

Analysis products to communities

 The State NFIP Coordinating Office 

Agency coordinates/collaborates with 

other state programs/ agencies to utilize 

data

 The State NFIP Coordinating Office 

Agency provides flood risk data to the 

public and communities using statefacilitated GIS technology

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. An example of such evidence is listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 58 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

One of the following:

 Meeting minutes/summary (CCO/Open 

House/Resilience/ or other meeting where 

products are presented to communities) 

with the date, location, and attendee list

 Project documents showing NFIP 

Coordinator Office representation in 

mapping projects

 Social media posts, newsletters, fact 

sheets, and other outreach materials that 

incorporate flood risk products and 

information. 

 Foundational evidence

PLUS 

 A document that includes a list of data 

(with descriptions) from other state 

agencies/programs utilized in flood 

hazard mapping products (e.g., erosion 

mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

or National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) gauges)

 Foundational evidence

PLUS 

 The link to the state website that 

disseminates flood risk data for public 

consumption 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application16 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a plan/strategy to promote flood risk products (e.g., FIRMs, non-regulatory flood risk products). 

 Creation and dissemination of other products (not already funded by Risk MAP/CTP) aimed at increasing community and public 

awareness of flood risk (e.g., public information webpage, social media campaign)

 Participation and collaboration in the development and execution of mapping meetings such as Discovery, Flood Risk Report 

(FRR), Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO), Open House, etc. 

16 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 59 

IV.B. Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the State

This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Agency is integrated with hazard mitigation planning activities 

across the state. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(10) and 60.25(b)(11) which set forth 

state duties to coordinate with other state agencies, particularly in identifying and implementing flood hazard mitigation recommendations.

Table 23: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic IV.B. Coordination and Integrated Planning Across the State

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The State NFIP Coordinating Office 

Agency reviews/provides information 

as requested by the State Hazard 

Mitigation Officer (SHMO) to 

influence mitigation

 The State NFIP Coordinating Office 

Agency participates in writing and/or 

submits recommendations to the State 

Hazard Mitigation Plan and other related 

plans integrating floodplain 

management issues

 The state’s floodplain management priorities 

(i.e., high-risk properties such as 

substantially damaged structures, repetitive 

loss/severe repetitive loss (RL/SRL) 

properties, floodway structures, and 

violations) are integrated into the State 

Hazard Mitigation Plan

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. An example of such evidence is listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 60 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

One of the following:

 Meeting minutes/participant lists

 Email correspondence that 

specifically illustrates that the NFIP 

Coordinator’s Office is providing 

floodplain management expertise to 

the SHMO in response to state 

floodplain management issues and 

risks

One of the following:

 Evidence of formal input into State 

Hazard Mitigation Plan, which could be 

in the format of emails, letters, or 

feedback submitted

 A list of meetings attended (with dates) 

where floodplain management input was 

provided to a plan

 A letter from the primary authoring 

agency of the plan that details the input 

that they received

 The most recent state plan (or opportunity to 

submit updates) with floodplain 

management priorities highlighted

 High-risk property inventory

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application17 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Travel, planning, participation, and/or facilitation of working sessions with the SHMO. 

 Development of an inventory of high-risk structures. 

17 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 61 

IV.C. Coordination with Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) (other than FEMA)

This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Office is building relationships with OFAs in advance of and outside 

of flood events. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with Section 60.25(b)(10) which set forth state duties related to 

coordination with other agencies.

Table 24: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic IV.C. Coordination with OFAs (other than FEMA)

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below. 

 The State NFIP Coordinating 

Agency coordinates annually 

with two federal agenciesa

other than FEMA on 

floodplain management 

issues 

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency 

coordinates annually with three federal 

agencies other than FEMA on 

floodplain management issues

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency coordinates 

annually with more than three federal agencies other 

than FEMA on floodplain management issues

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement in each of the three PoPs. An example of such evidence is listed below:

For each federal agency a State NFIP Coordinating Office Agency coordinates with, submit a document with the following:

 Date of last meeting with the agency

 The agency name

 Full name, title, and email address of your primary POC

 Agenda/Meeting minutes demonstrating active NFIP Coordinator participation (e.g., listed as a speaker or presenter)

Notes: 

a Different agencies under the same department can be counted individually. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency (CISA) are both under DHS and would count separately. However, programs under the same agency (e.g., FEMA Risk Analysis and FEMA 

Floodplain Management) do not count separately. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 62 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application18 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Participation in the state Silver Jackets chapter.

 Regular coordination with federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and Small Business Administration (SBA).

 Development of a strategy/plan and tracker for OFA engagements and goals.

 Development of project applications for Federal funding such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).

 Coordination with OFAs to develop a single document of all available funding sources for communities and their residents to 

reduce risk/increase resilience.

18 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 63 

IV.D. Coordination with Insurance Professionals

This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Agency encourages and supports the flood insurance aspects of the 

NFIP within the state. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with Section 60.25(b)(10) which set forth state duties related to 

coordination with other agencies.

Table 25: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic IV.D Coordination with Insurance Professionals

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

 The State NFIP Coordinating 

Agency actively collaborates 

with Regional Flood 

Insurance Liaison (RFIL)

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency 

collaborates with insurance 

professionals on joint flood insurance 

initiatives or actively engages in 

insurance agent training and 

professional development at least 

once per PoP for the last 3 PoPs

 The state meets Proficient benchmark

AND 

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency collaborates on a 

statewide initiative with state flood insurance 

commissioner’s office at least once per PoP for the 

last 3 PoPs

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states meeting Foundational are required to 

submit evidence showing achievement over the course of the three PoPs; states meeting Proficient or Advanced are required to submit 

evidence showing achievement in each of the three PoPs. An example of such evidence is listed below. All examples are potential options 

of evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 64 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

 Documentation of state-led 

collaboration with the RFIL 

(emails, call logs, meeting 

minutes, etc.) which illustrate 

that the NFIP Coordinator’s 

Office is collaborating on 

specific projects or initiatives 

or providing NFIP insurance 

technical assistance to 

stakeholders

 Foundational evidence

PLUS one or more of the following:

 Insurance agent training records

 Meeting minutes/summaries and 

dates of collaborative efforts with 

insurance professionals, including 

organization name and contact 

information 

 Deliverables, pamphlets, or materials 

developed in conjunction with 

insurance professionals

 Foundational and Proficient evidence

PLUS one or more of the following:

 Meeting minutes/summaries and dates

 Deliverables developed jointly

 Email correspondence on the initiative

 Letter from the state insurance commissioner on the 

initiative, which details the collaborative effort and 

state NFIP role

 Deliverables, pamphlets, or materials developed in 

coordination with state insurance commissioner

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application19 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of a joint communications campaign/public service announcement or other hazard insurance-focused initiative with 

state insurance professionals (e.g., associations) or State Insurance Commissioner’s office.

 Support for executing Information Sharing and Access Agreements (ISAAs).

 Coordinating the development and delivery of information/training to insurance professionals on NFIP changes.

 Regular coordination/meetings with the FEMA RFIL on insurance initiatives in the state.

19 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 65 

IV.E. Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations

This characteristic intends to measure that the State NFIP Coordinating Agency understands if/when/how it fits into the state’s Emergency 

Operations Center (EOC) operations and procedures. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Section 60.25(b)(10) 

and Goal 3 of the FEMA Strategic Plan which set forth the expectation that State floodplain management programs should coordinate with 

other state functions to promote a ready nation.

Table 26: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic IV.E. Coordination and Integration into State Emergency Operations

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

There is no 

Foundational 

benchmark for 

this 

characteristic 

 The State NFIP Coordinating Agency has regular coordination with 

the Emergency Management Office (EMO) and collaborates in a postdisaster environment

 State floodplain management 

participates at the EOC, is used as a 

resource, and/or provides subject matter 

expertise as part of emergency 

operations or post-disaster support

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. An example of such evidence is listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:

There is no 

Foundational 

benchmark for 

this 

characteristic

One of the following:

 Meeting minutes/summary and a participant list demonstrating 

active NFIP Coordinator participation (e.g., listed as a speaker or 

presenter)

 Email correspondence that illustrates that the NFIP Coordinator’s 

Office has collaborated or provided technical assistance during a 

specific disaster

 Other documented evidence of coordination with EMO, for example: 

a signed letter from someone at the EMO which details the 

collaboration with the State NFIP Coordinating Agency

Documentation of a designated position in 

the EOC (for example: a plan/annex that 

assigns the role, screenshot from WebEOC, 

etc.)
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 66 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application20 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Provision of technical inputs and participation in state exercises.

 Provision of floodplain management technical assistance to Federal Coordinating Officer/State Coordinating Officer (FCO/SCO).

 Regular coordination with the state EM office to identify an appropriate role in the EOC and develop the role description.

 Development of a communications plan with the SHMO or state EM office (e.g., one that identifies different triggers and actions 

and different emergency level). 

20 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 67 

IV.F. Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures

This characteristic intends to measure that funding is prioritized and used to mitigate priority structures impacted by flooding in the state. 

Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF is aligned with 44 CFR Sections 60.25(b)(10) and 60.25(b)(11) which set forth state duties to 

coordinate with other state agencies, particularly in identifying and implementing flood hazard mitigation recommendations.

Table 27: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic IV.F. Optimized Use of Mitigation Funding for Priority Structures

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

There is no 

Foundational 

benchmark for this 

characteristic 

 The State NFIP Coordinating Office Agency 

participates with the SHMO in activities to mitigate 

state priority properties, such as substantially 

damaged structures, repetitive loss/severe 

repetitive loss (RL/SRL) properties, floodway 

structures, violations, compliance and mitigation of 

state-owned structures, etc., and creates annual 

reports of these mitigation activities.

 State must meet Proficient Benchmark 

PLUS 

 Demonstrate that they either lead or have shared 

responsibilities for prioritizing grant funding (e.g., 

participate in application selections or lead a grant 

like Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) for the state).

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement in each of the three PoPs. An example of such evidence is listed below. All examples are potential options of evidence, 

unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 68 

Foundational Proficient Advanced

There is no 

Foundational 

benchmark for this 

characteristic

 Demonstration that grants (from FEMA, and from 

other relevant grant sources) are mitigating priority 

flood prone properties or areas. For example:

o A table listing the state’s current priority 

properties, and any active/recently completed 

grants relevant to such properties

o For each relevant grant, a recent quarterly report 

or the grant’s SOW to support the grant linkage to 

priority properties or areas

PLUS 

 Three annual reports (one for each year) of the 

mitigation activities

 Proficient evidence

PLUS 

 Evidence of leading or sharing responsibilities for 

prioritizing grant funding such as selection committee 

charters with named NFIP Coordinator staff, 

department/office organization charts demonstrating 

grant responsibilities, etc. 

 Examples to Help Improve Your Score 

Listed below are examples of eligible activities under the CAP-SSSE grant that a state may consider incorporating into their next SOW 

and grant application21 to help improve their score in this characteristic: 

 Development of an assessment of the state’s priority structures (SD, RL, SRL) and identification of appropriate mitigation funding 

sources (e.g., Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)).

 Development and implementation of an FMA strategy, integrated with the state HM plan.

 Annual evaluation of the state HM plan to identify gaps and strategies to address structures (SD, RL, SRL).

21 Subject to Regional approval. 
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Planning and Coordination 69 

IV.G. Strategic Planning (New)

This characteristic intends to measure if and how the State Coordinating Office is assessing performance of the program, planning for the 

future, and tracking success of strategic planning efforts. Inclusion of this characteristic in the TSF represents best practices proposed by 

Principle 10 of ASFPM’s Guiding Principles for Effective State Programs which attribute effectiveness to evaluations and documented 

successes. This characteristic will be mandatory in 2026 and voluntary for states who can meet the benchmark in the 2024 Off-Cycle 

Table 28: Benchmarks and evidence examples for characteristic IV.G. Strategic Planning

Foundational Proficient Advanced

Benchmarks

In order to qualify for a tier, states must demonstrate that they meet the description in the corresponding column below.

There is no Foundational benchmark for 

this characteristic

 The State Coordinating Office has 

developed a strategy with a clear future 

vision, goals, objectives, measures, and 

planned initiatives/ activities 

 The state meets Proficient benchmark

AND 

 The State Coordinating Office has 

implemented their strategy/plan and can 

show results 

Evidence

States must submit evidence that supports their tier assignment. For this characteristic, states are required to submit evidence showing 

achievement over the course of the three PoPs. An example of such evidence is listed below. All examples are potential options of 

evidence, unless noted with “PLUS,” which signifies that more than one piece of evidence is required:

There is no Foundational benchmark for this 

characteristic

 A final, published strategic plan outlining 

the future of the program, with clear 

metrics for measuring progress against 

goals and determining successesa

 Proficient evidence 

PLUS

 Evidence of progress-tracking of 

strategic initiatives and activities and 

their impact, such as an analysis of

previously outlined metrics, for at least 

one year of implementation

a The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) provides a template strategic plan that can be leveraged and tailored for this purpose.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Summary of Characteristics and Benchmarks 70 

Appendix A. Summary Tables of Characteristics and Benchmarks 

The table below includes changes that will be mandatory in 2026, or voluntary for states who can meet the benchmark in the 2024 Off-Cycle. 

Capacity 

Intent: States ensure minimum NFIP requirements are met and enforced. States meet grant requirements of 2 CFR 200 and the NOFO.

Characteristic FOUNDATIONAL 

Benchmark

PROFICIENT 

Benchmark

ADVANCED

Benchmark

Evidence Provided 

by

I.A. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for 

Local Communities 

Regulations meet minimum standards and state 

works with communities to address violations

Enforcement sent to FEMA Statewide higher standards. Enforcement is stateledState

I.B. State Land Use Authority and Enforcement for 

State-Owned Properties 

Regulations meet minimum standards Enforcement sent to FEMA Statewide higher standards. Enforcement is stateledFEMA in 2023

I.C. Financial Grant Management By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): <10% deobligations 

and extensions <12 months over three years 

By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): <4% deobligations 

and extensions <9 months over three years

By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): Extensions <6 

months over three years 

FEMA

Benchmark raised after 2023 assessment

I.D. Administrative Grant Management No more than 3 late submissions No more than 1 late submission All on-time documents FEMA

I.E. Ability to Overmatch Equal to 25% as required by the grant >25% >40% FEMA & State if 

desired

Advanced benchmarks temporarily reduced Jul 

2022 – June 2025

No change No change 40% for the period of July 2022 to June 2025

Capability 

Intent: States enhance professional development of their staff and communicate and train communities on floodplain management topics. 

Characteristic FOUNDATIONAL 

Benchmark

PROFICIENT 

Benchmark

ADVANCED

Benchmark

Evidence Provided 

by

II.A. Investment in Professional Development Education and/or experience in floodplain 

management

8 hours of training per FTE covered by CAP grant 

per three-year cycle

8 hours of training + advanced 

degree/certification per FTE covered by CAP grant 

OR 7+ years’ exp in FPM and a bachelor’s degree

State

II.B. Communication with Communities on NFIP 

Topics 

Communication occurs broadly each year Communication to all communities at least 

quarterly 

Quarterly communications + communication plan 

(with evidence of implementation)

FEMA & State if 

desired

II.C. Basic Floodplain Management Training 

Coverage 

To be scored in 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle) 

>10% of communities received the training in last 

5 years

>30% of communities received the training in last 

five years

>65% of communities received the training in last 

5 years

FEMA & State
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Summary of Characteristics and Benchmarks 71 

Characteristic FOUNDATIONAL 

Benchmark

PROFICIENT 

Benchmark

ADVANCED

Benchmark

Evidence Provided 

by

II.D. Ability to Deliver a Variety of Training 2 Different Topics, 6 hrs each >3 Different Topics, 6 hrs each >5 Different Topics, 6 hrs each State

II.E. Process for Reviewing and Improving Model 

Floodplain Management Regulations 

Provide model ordinances that meet minimum 

standards

Review and update model ordinances on five-year 

cycle 

Review and update model ordinances on threeyear cycle + integrate higher standardsState

II.F. Substantial Damage Program By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle: Statewide plan in 

place 

By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): Statewide plan in 

place which is implementable and operational 

Statewide plan in place and targeted communities 

have individual plans in place 

State

Benchmark raised after 2023 assessment

II.G. Percent of Participating Communities No Foundational requirement >80% mapped communities participate or nonparticipating communities are understood and 

engaged

>90% mapped By 2026: No change communities 

participate or non-participating communities are 

understood and engaged with an action plan in 

place

FEMA & State if 

desired

II.H. Addressing Equity in Floodplain Management 

To be scored in 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle) 

Incorporates equity data into planning Prioritizes and tracks assistance to underserved 

communities 

Equity-focused initiatives tailored to underserved 

communities 

State

II.I. Improving Resilience to Climate Change and 

Future Conditions 

To be scored in 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle) 

Utilizes future conditions data to informing 

planning and decisions

Incorporates future conditions into outreach and 

engagements

State program has (or is party to) initiatives to 

mitigate future risk

State

Performance Measures

Intent: States identify performance measure targets that encompass floodplain management activities including CAV, CAC, GTA, Training, and Outreach to build local capability for managing the floodplain and reducing risk. 

Characteristic FOUNDATIONAL 

Benchmark

PROFICIENT 

Benchmark

ADVANCED

Benchmark

Evidence Provided 

by

III.A. Communities Engaged Meets “Expected” Target No Proficient requirement Meets “Excellence” Target at 10% above Expected 

Target

FEMA

III.B. Higher Standards Adoption Meets “Expected” Target No Proficient requirement Meets “Excellence” Target at 75% FEMA

III.C. Community Compliance Improvement By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): Audited >10% of its 

communities 

By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): Audited >25% of its 

communities 

By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): Audited >55% of its 

communities 

FEMA

Benchmark raised after 2023 assessment

III.D. Map Adoption Meets “Expected” Target at 93% No Proficient requirement Meets "Excellence" Target at 98% FEMA
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Summary of Characteristics and Benchmarks 72 

Planning and Coordination 

Intent: States develop a working relationship with SHMO and other state and federal offices that have impact on floodplain management to create a coordinated effort for communities before, during, and after disasters. 

Characteristic FOUNDATIONAL 

Benchmark

PROFICIENT 

Benchmark

ADVANCED

Benchmark

Evidence Provided 

by

IV.A. Promotion of Flood Risk Awareness Products Provide FEMA Risk Analysis products to 

communities 

Utilize data from other agencies Delivers data via state-facilitated GIS technology State

IV.B. Coordination and Integrated Planning across 

the State 

Coordinates with SHMO Submits formal input to State Hazard Mitigation 

Plan

Floodplain management targets included in State 

Hazard Mitigation Plan

State

IV.C. Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 

(OFAs) 

Coordinate with 2 agencies Coordinate with 3 agencies Coordinate with >3 agencies State

IV.D. Coordination with Insurance Professionals State-led RIFL coordination Agent training or collaboration Collaborate on statewide initiative with state flood 

insurance commissioner

State

IV.E. Coordination and Integration into State 

Emergency Operations 

No Foundational requirement Coordinate with EMO Integrated into emergency operations State

IV.F. Optimized use of Mitigation Funding for 

Priority Structures 

No Foundational requirement By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): Floodplain 

management targets funded for mitigation 

By 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle): Lead or have shared 

responsibilities for prioritizing grant funding 

State

Benchmark raised after 2023 assessment By 2026: No Change

IV.G. Strategic Planning 

To be scored in 2026 (or 2024 Off-Cycle) 

No Foundational requirement Strategy with vision, goals, objectives, measures, 

and activities

Implemented strategy with results State
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Considerations for New or Returning State NFIP Coordinating Agencies in the TSF 73 

Appendix B. Considerations for New or Returning State NFIP Coordinating Agencies 

Characteristic New Program

Never received CAP-SSSE grant before 

Returning Program

Have CAP-SSSE history but may have taken a 

hiatus for one year or more

Benchmarks Evidence Benchmarks Evidence

All Must submit a full TSF assessment upon applying for the grant. For all new grantees, there 

will be a required follow-up assessment after one year regardless of the established threeyear cycle. 

Must submit a full TSF assessment upon reapplying for the grant. If more than three years 

has passed since they last had an active PoP, then the state will be subject to the same 

requirement as a brand-new grantee/program.

I.A. State Land Use Authority and 

Enforcement for Local Communities 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs, however, 

they will not be able to produce CIS 

evidence so they will have to provide SOPs 

and/or letter templates

No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs, 

however, they will not be able to produce 

CIS evidence for recent years so they will 

have to provide SOPs and/or letter 

templates

I.B. State Land Use Authority and 

Enforcement for State-Owned 

Properties 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

I.C. Financial Grant Management New programs will not have a CAP financial 

management history so they will enter the 

program as Foundational with a mandatory 

reassessment after one year.

New programs will not have a CAP financial 

management history. 

No adjustments to the benchmark criteria. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three

years will be used as the basis for the 

determination.

I.D. Administrative Grant 

Management 

New programs will not have a three-year 

history. They will enter the program as 

Foundational (assuming they submit their TSF 

Assessment on time) with a mandatory 

reassessment after one-year.

TSF Assessment must be on-time to enter 

as Foundational.

No adjustments to the benchmark criteria. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years will be used as the basis for the 

determination.

I.E. Ability to Overmatch No adjustments to benchmark criteria. New 

programs will not have a three-year history, so 

the current year’s anticipated cost match will 

be considered and reconfirmed at award.

New programs will not have a three-year 

history, so the current year’s anticipated 

cost match will be considered and 

reconfirmed at award.

No adjustments to benchmark criteria. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years, 

including the current year, will be used as the 

basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years, including the current year, will be 

used as the basis for the determination.

II.A. Investment in Professional 

Development 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

II.B. Communication with 

Communities on NFIP Topics 

No adjustments for new programs New programs can provide evidence from 

outside CIS to prove that they have been 

engaging their communities about NFIP 

topics such as managing development in 

the SFHA.

No adjustments for returning programs Can provide evidence from outside CIS to 

prove that they have been engaging their 

communities about NFIP topics during years 

that they did not have an active CAP grant.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Considerations for New or Returning State NFIP Coordinating Agencies in the TSF 74 

Characteristic New Program

Never received CAP-SSSE grant before 

Returning Program

Have CAP-SSSE history but may have taken a 

hiatus for one year or more

II.C. Basic Floodplain Management 

Training Coverage 

No adjustments to benchmark criteria. New 

programs will not have a three-year history, so 

the training plan for the current year will be the 

basis of the assessment with a mandatory 

reassessment after one year.

New programs will likely not be able to 

provide training records so they will have to 

submit training plans.

No adjustments to benchmark criteria. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years, 

including the training plan for the current year, 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years, including the training plan for the 

current year, will be used as the basis for 

the determination.

II.D. Ability to Deliver a Variety of 

Training 

No adjustments to benchmark criteria. New 

programs will not have a three-year history, so 

the training plan for the current year will be the 

basis of the assessment with a mandatory 

reassessment after one year.

New programs will likely not be able to 

provide training records so they will have to 

submit training plans.

No adjustments to benchmark criteria. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years, 

including the training plan for the current year, 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years, including the training plan for the 

current year, will be used as the basis for 

the determination.

II.E. Process for Reviewing and 

Improving Model Floodplain 

Management Regulations 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

II.F. Substantial Damage Program No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

II.G. Percent of Participating 

Communities 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

II.H. Addressing Equity in Floodplain 

Management 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

II.I. Improving Resilience to Climate 

Change and Future Conditions 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

III.A. Communities Engaged New programs will not have a performance 

metric history so they will enter the program as 

Foundational with a mandatory reassessment 

after one year.

New programs will not have a performance 

metric history.

No adjustments for returning programs. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years will be used as the basis for the 

determination.

III.B. Higher Standards Adoption New programs will not have a performance 

metric history so they will enter the program as 

Foundational with a mandatory reassessment 

after one year.

New programs will not have a performance 

metric history.

No adjustments for returning programs. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years will be used as the basis for the 

determination.

III.C. Community Compliance 

Improvement 

New programs will not have a performance 

metric history so they will enter the program as 

Foundational with a mandatory reassessment 

after one year.

New programs will not have a performance 

metric history. 

No adjustments for returning programs. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years will be used as the basis for the 

determination.

III.E. Map Adoption New programs will not have a performance 

metric history so they will enter the program as 

Foundational with a mandatory reassessment 

after one year.

New programs will not have a performance 

metric history.

No adjustments for returning programs. Any 

active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three years 

will be used as the basis for the determination.

Any active CAP-SSSE grants in the last three 

years will be used as the basis for the 

determination.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Considerations for New or Returning State NFIP Coordinating Agencies in the TSF 75 

Characteristic New Program

Never received CAP-SSSE grant before 

Returning Program

Have CAP-SSSE history but may have taken a 

hiatus for one year or more

IV.A. Promotion of Flood Risk 

Awareness Products 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

IV.B. Coordination and Integrated 

Planning Across the State 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

IV.C. Coordination with OFAs (other 

than FEMA) 

No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for new programs No adjustments for returning programs No adjustments for returning programs

IV.D. Coordination with Insurance 

Professionals 

No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for returning programs. No adjustments for returning programs.

IV.E. Coordination and Integration into 

State Emergency Operations 

No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for returning programs. No adjustments for returning programs.

IV.F. Optimized Use of Mitigation 

Funding for Priority Structures 

No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for returning programs. No adjustments for returning programs.

IV.G. Strategic Planning No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for new programs. No adjustments for returning programs. No adjustments for returning programs.
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Glossary 76 

Appendix C. Glossary 

CAC Community Assistance Contacts

CAP-SSSE Community Assistance Program – State Support Services Element

CAV Community Assistance Visits

CEC Continuing education course

CEPTool Community Engagement Prioritization Tool 

CEU Continuing education unit

CFM Certified Floodplain Manager

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIS Community Information System

CRS Community Rating System

DRRA Disaster Recovery Reform Act

EMO Emergency Management Office 

EO Executive Order

EOC Emergency Operations Center

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FFRMS Federal Flood Risk Management Standard

FTE Full-time equivalent

GIS Geographic Information System

HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan

IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System

MIP Mapping Information Platform
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Glossary 77 

ND Grants Non-disaster grants

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOFO Notice of Funding Opportunity

OFA Other Federal Agency

PARS Payment and Reporting System

POC Point of contact

PoP Period of Performance

RFIL Regional Flood Insurance Liaison

RL/SRL Repetitive loss/severe repetitive loss

SDAP Substantial Damage Administrative Procedures 

SI/SD Substantial improvement/Substantial damage

SHMO State Hazard Mitigation Officer 

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

SOP Standard operating procedure

SOW Statement of Work

SVI Social Vulnerability Index

TSF Tiered State Framework

USGS United States Geological Survey
CAP-SSSE TSF Playbook

Relevant Dates for Off-Cycle 2024 Assessment 78 

Appendix D. Relevant Dates for 

2024 Off-Cycle Assessment for 

Characteristic I.D. Administrative 

Grant Management 

Relevant dates from the last three PoPs can be found below. 

Quarterly Report Submission Dates 

(30 days after the end of the quarter)

Grant Application 

Submission Date Deadline

TSF Assessment 

Submission Dates

FY20 QR1: October 30, 2020

QR2: January 30, 2021

QR3: April 30, 2021

Final: September 30, 2021a 

June 14, 2020 January 4, 2021 

(Off-cycle)

FY21 QR1: October 30, 2021

QR2: January 30, 2022

QR3: April 30, 2022

Final: October 30, 2022a

June 28, 2021 January 3, 2022 

(Off-cycle)

FY22 QR1: October 30, 2022 

QR2: January 30, 2023 

QR3: April 30, 2023

Final: October 30, 2023

June 18, 2022 January 5, 2023

NOTES:

a Some regions may require a QR4 report that is separate from the final closeout report, due July 30. 

This is not required for the TSF Assessment, unless a state has an extension, in which case, a QR4 

report would be due at the date listed above, and subsequent QRs for any additional quarters of the 

grant would be required as well as a final closeout report.