DNP/725 Week 5: Stakeholder Mapping and Political Feasibility, sample paper

Hunters, Sheriffs, Pediatricians and a Rifle Association: Mapping Who Can Pass or Stop a Safe Storage Law, and Where the Persuadable Middle Lies

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

DNP/725: Policy and Regulation in Health Care

Week 5 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The state and stakeholders are composites written for a model paper.

The child access prevention bill in our state has died in committee twice. Evidence supports it, but evidence is not what stopped it. Understanding who supports it, who opposes it, what each group wants and how much power each holds is the next step toward passage. This paper maps the stakeholders and assesses political feasibility.

What Stakeholder Analysis Is

Brugha and Varvasovszky (2000) reviewed stakeholder analysis as an approach to understanding a policy context by generating knowledge about the actors involved, their behavior, intentions, interrelations, agendas, interests and influence over decisions. They describe its uses in developing strategies for managing stakeholders, facilitating implementation and assessing the feasibility of future policies, and caution that it offers a snapshot of an evolving situation and should be complemented by other analyses.

How to Do It

Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000) describe practical steps: defining the issue and time frame, identifying stakeholders through documents and insiders, collecting data on positions, interests and influence through interviews and records, and organizing the results in tables or maps. They emphasize that the process should be iterative, revisited as new information arrives, and that analysts should be aware of biases in their own judgments.

Identifying Stakeholders

Using committee testimony from previous sessions, news coverage and conversations with legislative staff, I identified 16 stakeholder groups. They include legislators on the Health and Judiciary committees, the governor's office, the professional bodies for nurses, pediatricians and physicians, a parent advocacy group formed after a child's death, the state rifle association, two hunting and conservation organizations, the sheriffs' association, the prosecutors' association, firearm retailers, the state health department, rural hospitals and a faith coalition.

Positions and Interests

For each group, I estimated position on the bill from strong support to strong opposition, the reasons behind that position and the resources the group could bring. The nurses association, pediatric society and parent group strongly support the bill because of child health. The rifle association strongly opposes it as an infringement on self-defense and an unfair burden on owners. Hunting organizations are divided: they value responsible ownership and safety training but distrust new gun laws. The sheriffs' association is uncertain; some sheriffs support safe storage, while others worry about enforcement. Prosecutors want clear standards and discretion. Retailers are neutral but could support a lock distribution program.

The rifle association will not move and the pediatricians are already on board; the bill will be decided by hunters and sheriffs.

Influence

Influence reflects access to decision makers, voting blocs, money, expertise and public credibility. The rifle association has high influence through campaign support and member mobilization. Hunting organizations and sheriffs have high credibility with rural legislators. Health professional groups have moderate influence and high public trust. The parent group has emotional power in hearings but limited organizational capacity.

The Grid

Placing stakeholders on a grid of position and influence produces four groups. High influence and supportive: the medical society and, potentially, the health department. High influence and opposed: the rifle association. High influence and uncertain: hunting organizations, the sheriffs' association and several rural legislators. Low influence and supportive: parent group, faith coalition, nurses in rural districts.

Relationships Among Stakeholders

Stakeholders influence each other. Rural legislators consult sheriffs; sheriffs listen to hunting organizations; hunting organizations share members with the rifle association. A change in one group's position can ripple through others. Mapping these relationships shows that winning over one hunting organization could shift the sheriffs and, through them, several legislators.

Public Opinion

Barry et al. (2018), in a national survey conducted in 2017, found that for 23 of 24 gun policies, most respondents supported restricting or regulating gun ownership, and only 8 policies had a support gap of more than 10 points between gun owners and non-gun owners. Policies with broad support across ownership status included universal background checks and higher safety training standards for concealed carry. This suggests that framing safe storage as a responsible ownership measure can attract support from gun owners.

Strategy by Quadrant

For opposed high-influence stakeholders, the goal is not conversion but neutralization: avoid provocative framing, anticipate their arguments and prevent them from recruiting uncertain groups. For uncertain high-influence stakeholders, the goal is persuasion: meet hunting organization leaders to discuss adding storage lessons to hunter education and a carve-out for firearms the owner is wearing, and invite sheriffs to shape enforcement language. For supportive low-influence stakeholders, the goal is mobilization: train parents and nurses to share their stories with legislators in their own districts. For supportive high-influence stakeholders, the goal is visible leadership: ask the medical society president to testify alongside a hunter.

Gathering the Data

Positions were estimated from testimony transcripts, organizational websites and newsletters, news coverage and eight interviews with legislative staff and organization leaders. Where sources conflicted, I noted uncertainty rather than forcing a single rating.

Political Feasibility

Before this analysis, the bill's feasibility appeared low. With one hunting organization and the sheriffs' association neutral or supportive, the bill's chances in committee would rise substantially, since rural legislators take cues from them. Feasibility depends less on the number of supporters than on the position of the uncertain influential groups.

Compromises to Consider

Stakeholder interests suggest compromises that preserve effectiveness: exemptions for guns carried or under the owner's immediate control, a negligence standard applying only when a child actually gains access, prosecutorial discretion in cases involving a family's own loss and funding for free locks. A compromise that changes the standard to recklessness would sacrifice the evidence base and should be resisted.

Legislators as Stakeholders

Legislators themselves are stakeholders with interests: reelection, reputation, relationships with colleagues and personal experience. Two members of the Health Committee have lost family members to suicide, one by firearm. With care and respect, their experience may make them receptive to evidence on youth suicide and storage. Understanding legislators as people, not only votes, shapes how advocates approach them.

Hidden Stakeholders

Some stakeholders do not appear in testimony. Insurers, who pay for pediatric trauma care, and school districts, which deal with firearms brought to school, have interests but have not engaged. Inviting them could broaden the coalition beyond health professionals.

Limits of the Map

Positions are estimates based on public statements and interviews and may shift as the session unfolds, especially after hearings and news coverage of any new child shooting. As the guidance on method advises (Varvasovszky & Brugha, 2000), I will update the map after each meeting and hearing.

Conclusion

A systematic stakeholder analysis shows that the bill's fate depends on uncertain, influential groups, especially hunting organizations and sheriffs, rather than on committed supporters or opponents. National survey data showing broad support among gun owners for many regulations suggest a responsible-ownership frame can reach them. A strategy that neutralizes opposition, persuades the middle and mobilizes supporters, with compromises that protect the negligence standard, improves political feasibility.

References

Barry, C. L., Webster, D. W., Stone, E., Crifasi, C. K., Vernick, J. S., & McGinty, E. E. (2018). Public support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. American Journal of Public Health, 108(7), 878-881. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304432

Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239

Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 338-345. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.338