Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1977 2(1):79-99; DOI:10.1215/03616878-2-1-79
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brandon, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Politics, Administration, and Conflict in Neighborhood Health Centers

William Brandon
University of Rochester

The paper begins with a brief introduction explaining neighborhood health centers (NHCs), their ideology of "comprehensive health services," and the origin of government sponsorship of this organizational form for the delivery of health care. In the generic account and in a subsequent discussion of a particular NHC (given the fictional name Peoples' Health Centers or PHC), particular attention is given to political aspects. PHC was established as a private, consumer-oriented, not-for-profit community corporation receiving grant funds from the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). Although the grantee was legally responsible for the funds, OEO required that a local university be awarded a large subcontract to provide health professional personnel and technological back-up. Severe conflict surrounded the relationship of these two local health institutions. In an analysis section offering an "explanation sketch" of an instance of political conflict, the paper develops a distinction between "political" and "administrative" perspectives that explains political conflict as a function of differences in the ways participants conceive of their organizations and activities. This distinction is then related to Etzioni's theoretical distinction between survival and goal-attainment models of organizational analysis. The paper concludes by making explicit four lessons that are intended to reassert the policy-orientation of the initial remarks.







  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1977 by Duke University Press