Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1987 Jan-Feb;68(1):50-9.

Surveys explore critical governance relationship

  • PMID: 10280357

Surveys explore critical governance relationship

M K Grant. Health Prog. 1987 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

The transition in religious-sponsored health care from a ministry of direct service to one of governance has generated serious and penetrating questions, analyses, and retrenchment. Emphasis on and demand for value-laden leadership development programs are growing at the same time that sponsoring groups are becoming more actively involved in the governance and oversight of their corporate ministries. Two recent Catholic Health Association (CHA) studies focused on the critical governance relationship between the sponsoring group and its incorporated ministries. The first study asked religious institutes and dioceses that were sponsors of CHA member health care freestanding facilities and systems to describe their current governance structure. The second study represented an initial attempt to identify qualitative components of effective governance or sponsorship and asked 19 major superiors and system chief executive officers (CEOs) to characterize an ideal relationship between sponsor and ministry. The studies' findings included the following: In freestanding facilities, lay-religious governing boards have all but replaced the all-sponsor and all-lay advisory boards of the past. Trustee orientation, development, and evaluation were not equally stressed in the three groups surveyed, with trustee evaluation programs lagging behind in all three. Major superiors and CEOs had remarkably similar expectations relating to accountability for mission, relationships between sponsor and corporation, communication, and leadership development. Both major superiors and CEOs looked for greater collaboration in defining roles, translating mission into "business plan", and developing formation programs for leadership. Major superiors' emphasized simplicity of life-style, whereas the CEOs stressed stable commitment to corporate ministry.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources