| Course | MPH 570 Public Health Policy and Leadership (MPH/570) |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Policy evidence review |
| Length | about 1,163 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MPH |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 570 Week 2
What a Retail License Can and Cannot Do: Weighing the Evidence on Local Tobacco Licensing, Sales Age Laws and Enforcement for a County Ordinance
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MPH/570: Public Health Policy and Leadership
Week 2 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The county, its commissioners, draft ordinance and local details are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources cited.
At the first briefing on the proposed tobacco retail license, a county commissioner asked a fair question: before we regulate local businesses, show me the evidence that licensing actually reduces youth use. This paper answers that question by reviewing and appraising the evidence and translating it into recommendations for the ordinance.
The Policy Question
The question was framed precisely: among youth in communities that adopt local tobacco retail licensing, with or without related sales restrictions, does use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes fall compared with communities without such policies, and which features of the policy matter most?
The Search
Staff searched for systematic reviews and studies of retail licensing, sales age laws and enforcement of youth access laws, focusing on outcomes of youth use and illegal sales. They prioritized reviews and studies with comparison groups.
Levels of Evidence
No randomized trial of a licensing ordinance exists, and one is unlikely: communities cannot be assigned to adopt laws. The best available evidence therefore comes from systematic reviews of enforcement trials, cohort studies comparing communities with different policies and natural experiments in which one community changes policy and its neighbors do not. Each design has weaknesses, so consistency across designs matters more than any single study.
Evidence One: Licensing Strength in California
A cohort study followed 1,553 eleventh and twelfth graders in Southern California and graded each of 14 jurisdictions on the strength of its local licensing ordinance. At baseline, youth in the four jurisdictions with the strongest ordinances had lower odds of ever smoking cigarettes, an odds ratio of 0.61, and of past-month smoking, 0.51, than youth in the ten weakest. At follow-up, around the legal purchase age, stronger ordinances were associated with lower odds of starting cigarettes, 0.67, and of starting e-cigarettes, 0.74 (Astor et al., 2019).
Appraising the California Study
The study's strengths include a cohort design, multiple products and a graded measure of policy strength rather than a yes-or-no comparison. Its limits include few jurisdictions, possible differences between communities that adopt strong ordinances and those that do not and the possibility that other local factors explain the results.
Evidence Two: Sales Age in Needham
A Massachusetts town raised its minimum tobacco sales age to 21 in 2005. Using a regional census survey of more than 16,000 high school students at each of four time points, researchers found that past-month smoking in Needham fell from 13% to 7% between 2006 and 2010, a significantly larger decline than in 16 comparison communities, where it fell from 15% to 12%. Cigarette purchases by current smokers also declined more, while youth alcohol use showed no comparable difference (Kessel Schneider et al., 2016). The alcohol comparison makes the tobacco result harder to dismiss as a general change in teen behavior.
Appraising the Needham Study
The comparison communities and the alcohol control strengthen the study. But it examines one town, whose local enforcement and community context may differ from other places, and federal law has since set the sales age at 21 everywhere, so the county's question is less about the age and more about enforcing it.
Evidence Three: Enforcement of Youth Sales Laws
A Cochrane review of interventions to prevent tobacco sales to minors identified 34 studies, 14 with control groups. Giving retailers information was less effective in reducing illegal sales than active enforcement, multicomponent education or both. No strategy achieved complete, sustained compliance, and in three controlled trials, interventions had little effect on youth perceptions of access or on smoking (Stead & Lancaster, 2005).
Appraising the Enforcement Evidence
The review is systematic and includes controlled studies, but most predate e-cigarettes and online sales. Its central lesson remains relevant: enforcement lowers illegal sales, but only sustained, frequent enforcement is likely to affect youth behavior, because young people find another willing seller when compliance is partial.
Local Evidence
Published studies were supplemented with local data. State compliance checks in the county over the past two years found that 14% of attempted underage purchases succeeded, with higher rates at vape specialty shops than at grocery chains. Without a local license, the county could not act on those findings beyond referring them to the state. Local data do not prove what licensing will achieve, but they show a gap the policy is designed to fill.
Synthesis
Read together, the evidence suggests that licensing works when it has teeth. Strong ordinances, with regular compliance checks and meaningful penalties, including license suspension, were associated with lower youth use. Enforcement reduces illegal sales, but weak or occasional enforcement leaves gaps that youth exploit. Education of retailers alone is not enough.
Features That Seem to Matter
The evidence points to specific ordinance features: a license required for every retailer, fees sufficient to fund enforcement, at least annual compliance checks with underage buyers, graduated penalties that include suspension or revocation and coverage of all tobacco and nicotine products, including e-cigarettes.
Unintended Effects
Possible unintended effects include youth shifting to online purchases or social sources, retailers passing costs to customers and uneven enforcement across neighborhoods. The ordinance should address online sales where state law allows and apply checks consistently. Staff should also watch for displacement, such as a rise in youth reporting that friends or siblings supply their products.
Equity Considerations
Evidence on equity is limited but important. Retailers are often denser in lower-income neighborhoods, so a licensing ordinance with consistent enforcement could benefit youth there the most. Uneven enforcement, by contrast, could concentrate penalties on small, family-owned stores. The ordinance should direct compliance checks by a random or rotating schedule rather than by complaint alone, and the department should report results by area.
Gaps in the Evidence
Few studies isolate the effect of licensing on e-cigarette use in communities like the county, with a large rural area and a mid-sized city. Effects on social sources, such as older friends, are poorly studied. Evaluations of retailer density limits near schools are limited.
Applicability to the County
The county differs from Southern California suburbs and a Boston-area town. Its unincorporated areas are large and rural, making compliance checks more costly. Cities within the county would need their own ordinances for full coverage. Still, the mechanisms, reducing sales to youth through enforceable licensing, apply.
The One-Page Brief
The brief for commissioners stated: the evidence supports licensing when it includes regular compliance checks, penalties that include suspension and coverage of e-cigarettes; weak licensing or education alone shows little effect; the county should fund enforcement through license fees and evaluate results with compliance data and student surveys.
Conclusion
The commissioner asked for evidence, and the answer was nuanced. A California cohort, a Massachusetts natural experiment and a Cochrane review together suggest that licensing with strong, sustained enforcement is associated with lower youth use, while weak licensing and retailer education alone are not. The ordinance should be designed around the features the evidence favors and evaluated honestly.
References
Astor, R. L., Urman, R., Barrington-Trimis, J. L., Berhane, K., Steinberg, J., Cousineau, M., Leventhal, A. M., Unger, J. B., Cruz, T., Pentz, M. A., Samet, J. M., & McConnell, R. (2019). Tobacco retail licensing and youth product use. Pediatrics, 143(2), Article e20173536. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-3536
Kessel Schneider, S., Buka, S. L., Dash, K., Winickoff, J. P., & O'Donnell, L. (2016). Community reductions in youth smoking after raising the minimum tobacco sales age to 21. Tobacco Control, 25(3), 355-359. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052207
Stead, L. F., & Lancaster, T. (2005). Interventions for preventing tobacco sales to minors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005(1), Article CD001497. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001497.pub2
What the MPH 570 Week 2 instructions ask
The second MPH 570 assignment typically centers on the evidence behind a policy issue. Prompts may ask students to frame a policy question, search the literature, appraise study designs and quality, summarize findings on effectiveness and unintended effects, identify gaps and judge how well the evidence applies to a particular jurisdiction. Some versions ask for a short policy brief in addition to the paper. Keep the brief to one page if so. Strong papers state the question precisely, weigh study designs honestly, report effect sizes rather than only direction, separate evidence on a policy's features from evidence on the policy overall and draw implications that decision makers can use.
How this MPH 570 Week 2 example is built
A commissioner's request for proof that licensing works opens the paper. The question is framed around youth use and the ordinance's features. Three bodies of evidence are appraised. A California cohort study compares youth tobacco use across jurisdictions graded by the strength of their licensing ordinances. A Massachusetts study compares youth smoking trends in a town that raised its sales age to 21 with its neighbors. A Cochrane review summarizes trials of retailer education and enforcement. Strengths and weaknesses of each design are weighed. The evidence is synthesized into ordinance features, gaps are named and a one-page brief for commissioners closes the paper, stating both what licensing can do and where the evidence runs thin.
MPH 570 Week 2 grading rubric: where the points go
The evidence week is typically graded on a precise question, sound appraisal of study quality and a synthesis decision makers can use. Graders look for the policy question framed clearly, relevant studies identified, designs and limitations appraised, findings reported accurately with effect sizes, consistency across studies assessed, gaps and unintended effects discussed and applicability to the jurisdiction considered. Systematic reviews and well-designed observational studies strengthen the paper. Linking evidence to specific policy features earns credit. Honest statements of uncertainty also earn marks. The remaining points reward organized writing and correct APA references. Papers that cite only studies supporting a preferred policy usually score lower, as do those that report direction without effect size.
MPH 570 Week 2 help: mistakes to avoid
Many MPH 570 Week 2 papers collect studies that agree with the author's policy and skip the rest. Frame a clear question: which policy, which population, which outcome. Search for systematic reviews first, then strong individual studies, including those with disappointing results. For each, note the design, the comparison, the size of the effect and the main threat to validity. Look across studies for consistency and for features that seem to matter, such as enforcement frequency or penalties. Ask whether the settings resemble yours. Finally, translate the evidence into specific recommendations and state plainly what remains uncertain, since decision makers trust honest limits. Keep a separate note of local data, which can fill gaps that published studies leave.
Related MPH 570 sample papers
Other MPH 570 week samples
- MPH 570 Week 1: Public Health Policy Process
- MPH 570 Week 3: Stakeholders and Coalitions
- MPH 570 Week 4: Legislative Advocacy Strategy
- MPH 570 Week 5: Community-Government Collaboration
- MPH 570 Week 6: Leadership for Policy Change
More MPH sample papers
- MPH 530 Week 2: Descriptive Epidemiology
- MPH 540 Week 2: Environmental Hazard Analysis
- MPH 550 Week 2: Probability and Sampling
- MPH 560 Week 2: Public Health Financing
MPH 570 Week 2 questions, answered
What does MPH/570 Week 2 usually ask for?
The second policy paper typically centers on the evidence for a policy issue, framing a question, appraising studies, synthesizing findings and judging how well they apply to a jurisdiction.
Where can I find a free MPH 570 Week 2 sample paper?
The tobacco licensing evidence review above can be read without charge, and each study has a note. Name the policy you are researching; your opening paper is free.
Does tobacco retail licensing reduce youth use?
A California cohort study found youth in jurisdictions with the strongest licensing ordinances had lower odds of past-month cigarette use and of starting e-cigarettes than youth in jurisdictions with weak or no ordinances.
Did raising the tobacco sales age to 21 reduce youth smoking?
In Needham, Massachusetts, past-month youth smoking fell from 13% to 7% between 2006 and 2010 after the town raised its sales age, compared with 15% to 12% in 16 nearby communities.
Does enforcing sales laws reduce youth smoking?
A Cochrane review found that active enforcement reduced illegal sales more than retailer information alone, but few communities sustained high compliance and effects on youth smoking were limited.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All MPH 570 week samples · All courses