Maximum Feasible Participation

Michael Hoover hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us
Wed Feb 3 14:55:37 PST 1999


Carrol Cox sent me an off-list message recounting his Bloomington- Normal experience with commnunity action programs established under the auspices of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) in the mid-60s. Created to coordinate the Johnson administration's poverty policies, OEO owed its existence to the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act. As I mentioned in a previous post, initially, Title II of the EOA called for 'maximum feasible participation' of those that federal funds & programs were intended to serve. Carrol mentioned that above local government refused to participate and very little money was ever forthcoming, save some for Head Start.

Same was true here in Central Florida, some money for HS but little else, and HS served only 600 children in 1967 out of 10,000 families living on incomes of less than $60/wk. The local program had a waiting list of 3000 children. Refusal of municipal (Orlando) and county (Orange) governments to participate resulted in the loss of funds for a neighborhood center, employment assistance, public health clinic, and day care and recreation centers. Almost no money existed for housing at all. Ira Katznelson has pointed out that southern politicians opposed economic opportunity programs because they feared they would hasten integration. As a former local community action agency activist here in Orlando has said, 'People like to say that the poverty programs were a great waste of money; really, they were never given a chance to work.'

First, opponents stripped attempts to 'empower the poor' through 'maximum feasible participation.' Secondly, money was never available. In 1967, less than 2 cents of each federal tax dollar went to finance economic opportunity programs. The much ballyhooed 'war on poverty' was waylayed for a number of reasons, the 'conservative coalition' of southern Democrats & Republicans and the escalating costs of Vietnam among them.

As for another kind of 'maximum participation,' AFDC participation of those eligible in 1995 (year prior to program's elimination) was about 50% nationally. At the low end were Alabama & Arkansas (Prez Klingon's state) at 21% while Alaska & Rhode Island were at the high end with over 80%. Others included South Dakota (21%), North Dakota (31%), Wyoming (36%), New York (56%), and California (59%).

Michael Hoover



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list