Recognizing that poverty and powerlessness are inextricably linked, the Community Action Program (CAP) adopted the foundational principle of maximum feasible participation (MFP). This principle represented an audacious experiment in extending the democratic principle of local, participatory self-governance to socially disadvantaged, poor populations. Although declared a failed experiment in the 1970s and 1980s, this article offers a detailed analysis of the 21st century CAP and provides some strong evidence that this declaration was premature and inaccurate. Despite the many struggles or barriers to authentic participation described by the local leaders interviewed for this study, this study offers a number of examples of how the CAP has met the spirit of MFP. For others interested in rectifying social inequities, this article highlights the substantive importance of adopting a foundational principle or operating norm that values authentic participation.
(2016). 2021 Strategic Plan. Yorkville, IL: Kendall County Health Department.
4.
(2016). Action for a Better Community: Community assessment 2016. Rochester, NY: Planning & Evaluation Department.
5.
AdlerG. (1994). Commuity action and maximum feasible participation: An opportunity lost but not forgotten for expanding democracy at home. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 8, 547–571.
6.
AlinskyS. (1969). Reveille for radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
7.
ArnsteinS. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
8.
BernerM. (2004). Current practices for involving citizens in local government budgeting: Moving beyond method. Public Administration Quarterly, 27(3/4), 410–432.
9.
BlandJ. (2016). Motivating and aligning human resources. In BunchB., & SulamoyoD., Community Action leaders: Rooting out poverty at the local level. (pp. 129–154). New York: Routledge.
10.
BlandJ., BunchB., & WangJ. (2016). Collaborating to build value. In BunchB., & Sulamoyo, Community Action leaders: Rooting out poverty at the local level. (pp. 97–128). New York: Routledge.
11.
BowenG. (2007). An analysis of citizen participation in anti-poverty programmes. Community Development Journal, 43(1), 65–78.
BrudneyJ. L., & EnglandR. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65.
14.
BunchB. S. (2016). Focusing on local needs. In BunchB. S., SulamoyoD. S., AuthorI. A., JohnsonL., & WangJ., Community Action leaders: Rooting out poverty at the local level. (pp. 70–96). New York: Routledge.
15.
BunchB. S., ItulyaA. M., & JohnsonL. (2016). Understanding the origina and evolution of Community Action. In BunchB. S., SulamoyoD. S., AuthorA. M.ItulyaL.Johnson, & WangJ., Community action leaders: Rooting out poverty at the local level. (pp. 12–36). New York: Routledge.
16.
ChaffinJ. L. (2016). CSBG IM#149 strengthening outcomes through two-generation approaches. Washington, DC: Federal Office of Community Services.
17.
ClarkR. F. (2000). Maximum feasible success: A history of the Community Action Program. Washington, DC: The National Association of Community Action Agencies.
CooperT., BryerT., & MeekJ. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 76–88.
21.
CrockerJ, KramerN, and RolkaA. A comprehensive guide to community action strategic planning.California Community Action Parnership Association, 2016.
22.
DenhardtR. B., & DenhardtJ. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.
23.
FollettM. P. (2005). The Giving of Orders. In ShafritzJ., OttJ., & JangY., Classics of organizatio theory. (pp. 152–157). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
24.
FrisbyM., & BowmanM. (1996). What we have here is a failure to communicate. Public Management, 78, A1–A5.
25.
GasserK., & KujawskiK. (2016). Community services block grant annual report.Washington, DC: National Association for State Community Services Programs.
26.
(2016). Guiding principles: Mobilizing our community to achieve self-sufficiency.Rochester, NY: United Way.
27.
HandleyD., & Howell-Moroney. (2010). Ordering stakeholder relationships and citizen participation: Evidence from the CDBG program. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 601–609.
28.
HarringtonM. (1962). The other America: Poverty in the United States. New York: The MacMillan Company.
29.
HatcherW. (2015). The efficacy of public participation in municipal budgeting: An exploratory survey of officials in government finance officers associations award winning cities. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 645–663.
30.
InnesJ., & BooherD. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436.
31.
KasprzakS. (2017, May 22). Executive Director Monroe County Opportunity Program. (BlandJ., Interviewer).
(2017). Kendall-Grundy Community Action CSBG 2017 Community Action Plan. Yorkville, IL: Kendall County Health Department.
34.
KingC., FelteyK., & SuselB. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.
35.
MelishT. J. (2010). Maximum feasible participation of the poor: New governance, new accountability, and a 21st century war on the sources of poverty. Yale Human Rights and Development Journal, 13(1), 1–133.
36.
MillerS. M., & ReinM. (1969). Participation, poverty, and administration. Public Administration Review, 29(1), 15–25.
37.
(2015). Monroe County Opportunity Program: Community needs assessment.Monroe, MI: MCOP.
38.
MoynihanD. P. (1969). Maximum feasible misunderstanding: Community Action in the war on poverty. New York: FREE Press.
PivenF., & ClowardR. (1993). Regulatin the poor: The functions of public welfare. New York: Vintage Books.
42.
RiccuciN. M., & Van RyzinG. G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30.
RubinL. B. (1969). Maximum feasible participation: The origins, implications, and present status. The Annals of the American Academiy of Political and Social Science, 385(1), 14–29.
45.
StiversC. (1990). Active citizenship and public administration. In WamsleyG., Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
StrangeJ. H. (1972). Community Action in North Carolina: Maximum feasible misunderstanding? mistake? or magic formula?Publius, 2(2), 51–73.
47.
SulamoyoD. (2017, May 20). Executive Director of Illinois Association of Community Action Agencies. (BlandJ., Interviewer).
48.
SundquistJ. L. (1969). On fighting poverty: Perspectives from experience. New York: Basic Books.
49.
TamblynR. (2014). Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) annual report 2014. Washington, DC: National Association for State Community Services Programs.
50.
TokarsA. (2015). 2015 Kendall County Board of Health Annual Report.Kendall County Health Department.
51.
TokarsA. (2017, May 17). Executive Director, Kendall-Grundy Community Action. (BlandJ. T., Interviewer).
TorfingJ., SorensenE., & RoiselandA. (2016). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society, 1–31.
54.
WicksA. (2017, May 19). VP for Planning & Evaluation. (BlandJ. T., Interviewer).
55.
WilsonW. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
