The research had three main objectives: 1) to determine the perception of effectiveness of the CRS program in mitigating future flood disasters, including those aspects of the program perceived to be most effective; 2) to determine reasons that more communities do not participate or participate at low levels; and 3) to identify factors that promote participation as well as inhibit more complete participation according to participants' own assessments. A secondary objective was to make recommendations for changes the CRS program could make that might improve its effectiveness at encouraging communities to implement measures that would help mitigate flooding.

The methodological approach was to conduct qualitative, semi-structured interviews with staff from public agencies at a sample of municipalities in the two target states. Interviews were conducted with eight CRS-participating and eight non-participating municipalities in Pennsylvania, and 16 participating municipalities in Florida. Communities were chosen for interviews from among those whose 30-year history showed the largest dollar amount of claims paid by the NFIP, as well as those with the highest number of NFIP policies. All of the communities in Florida within this target range are participating in CRS. The research conducted semi-structured interviews of municipal personnel tasked with floodplain management and the CRS program. Responses were assessed through categorizing and constant comparison of answers to reveal a core concept that is consistent with a Grounded Theory approach. Results identify several important challenges that communities face implementing the CRS program, that reveal reasons the program is not more completely implemented and not achieving its desired effect to the maximum extent possible.

Key findings for Objective 1 show that respondents directly involved in floodplain management were nearly unanimous in finding CRS to be useful because it provides descriptions of, and implementation guidance on, measures that might be applicable to individual communities. The only respondents who did not state this position were those who assessed themselves as too far removed from the program to express an opinion. Results also suggest participants' perception of the most effective mitigation measures of the CRS program, "outreach programs" and "freeboard ordinances," differed somewhat from the results of other researchers. Quantitative estimates suggest the most effective measures would be "open space preservation" and "freeboard ordinances," followed by, "protecting structures from flood damages." For Objective 2, the research concluded that communication was the key factor that appears to interfere with more complete implementation: communication from federal and state agencies to communities about potential advantages (especially in Pennsylvania, and other states with similar governance structures); and communication within communities between various departments with differing missions about how CRS could make improvements in multiple missions (in both target states, presumably elsewhere as well). Another prominent factor was funding for the mitigation measures that would make CRS its most effective. Respondents expressed being powerfully limited by a lack of funding, and the research further found the communities lacked knowledge about, and resources to acquire funding from multiple relevant state and federal sources that support municipalities' programs for many purposes that might be applied to flood mitigation actions. For Objective 3, the research concluded a number of factors promote or inhibit increased participation. Chief among these was the complex and burdensome application and reporting structure, which respondents found to be prohibitively time-consuming for the limited resources of smaller municipalities. Recommendations for ways FEMA could improve the program to increase the proportion of eligible municipalities that participate, and to increase the levels they are able to attain, include: modifications to federal rules that would better promote regional or county-scale collaboration; enhanced state participation with increased financial and technical support; and encouraging municipalities to increase communication among their own departments and with external institutions. (Abstract shortened by ProQuest.).