| Course | MPH 570 Public Health Policy and Leadership (MPH/570) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis paper |
| Length | about 1,181 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 3
Parents, Pediatricians, a Sheriff and the Convenience Store Association: Mapping Stakeholders and Building a Coalition for a County Tobacco Retail License
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MPH/570: Public Health Policy and Leadership
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The county, its stakeholders, their positions, the coalition and meeting details are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources cited.
At a planning meeting after the commissioners' first briefing, the health department's tobacco prevention coordinator drew two columns on a whiteboard: supporters and opponents. The supporters' column filled quickly. The opponents' column had a few names. Then the program manager asked who was missing: the people in between, who would decide the vote. This paper maps the stakeholders around the proposed tobacco retail license and plans a coalition to support it.
Why Stakeholder Analysis
Policies succeed or fail through people. Stakeholder analysis identifies who is affected, who can influence the decision and why each holds a position, so advocates can plan engagement rather than react to surprises.
Group One: Families and Youth
Parents of middle and high school students, especially near the school with the vape shop, are strongly supportive but have limited organized influence. Youth themselves hold a complex position: many students support limits on sales to younger teens, some who vape oppose restrictions and their testimony can be powerful with commissioners.
Group Two: Health and Education
Pediatricians, the hospital, school nurses, the school district, the local cancer and lung health organizations and the health department support licensing. They bring expertise, data and credibility. The school district's superintendent carries particular weight with commissioners.
Group Three: Businesses
Retailers vary. The state convenience store association and several vape shop owners oppose licensing, citing fees, paperwork and competition from cities without licenses. Some grocery chains that already train staff to check IDs are neutral. The chamber of commerce is concerned about precedent for business regulation but open to a reasonable fee.
Group Four: Government and Enforcement
The five county commissioners are the decision makers. Two appear supportive, one opposed and two undecided, concerned about business costs and enforcement. The sheriff's office would conduct compliance checks and is undecided: it supports protecting youth but worries about staff time. City councils within the county are watching.
Group Five: Community Organizations
Faith communities, youth sports leagues, the Boys and Girls Club and Hispanic community organizations have not taken positions but have strong ties to families, including in neighborhoods with many retailers.
Group Six: Media
The local newspaper, two radio stations and several community social media pages shape how residents and commissioners see the issue. Coverage of the vape shop near the school was sympathetic to parents, but reporters will also seek retailers' views. Media are not a stakeholder with a vote, yet their framing influences every stakeholder who has one.
The Interest and Influence Grid
On a grid of influence against position, the undecided commissioners and the sheriff sit in the high-influence, undecided quadrant; the superintendent and pediatricians sit in high-influence, supportive; the convenience store association sits in high-influence, opposed; parents and community organizations sit in lower influence but could rise with organization.
The Persuadables
The strategy focuses on the undecided commissioners and the sheriff. The commissioners' concerns are business costs and enforcement; the sheriff's is staff time. A licensing fee that fully funds compliance checks addresses both.
Lessons From California Campaigns
Experience elsewhere supports this focus. An evaluation of 22 local California projects seeking tobacco retail licenses found that successful campaigns determined policy readiness, gathered local data, identified a champion, built relationships with local law enforcement and decision makers and educated the community; major challenges included concerns about burdening businesses and objections to using police resources for tobacco control (Satterlund et al., 2014). The objections the county faces were the same ones California advocates met, and the same strategies answered them.
Working With the Sheriff
Following that lesson, the coordinator met the undersheriff to learn what enforcement would require. Together they estimated staff hours for twice-yearly compliance checks and set a fee to cover them. The sheriff agreed to testify that, with dedicated funding, the office could carry out checks.
Listening to Retailers First
Before any public event, the coordinator visited 12 retailers, including three vape shops, to ask about their experience with ID checks and state inspections. Several grocery managers said they already refused many underage buyers and would welcome a level playing field. Two vape shop owners said they checked IDs at the door. These conversations identified possible allies among businesses and exposed misunderstandings about the proposed fee.
Finding a Champion
One supportive commissioner, a former teacher, agreed to sponsor the ordinance and speak with colleagues. A champion inside the decision-making body can carry concerns and negotiate details that outside advocates cannot.
Engaging Opponents
The coalition will meet with the convenience store association and vape shop owners to hear concerns and explain the proposal. Some concerns, such as paperwork, can be addressed through a simple online license. Others, such as opposition to any regulation, cannot, but respectful engagement reduces misinformation and may soften opposition.
The Coalition Structure
The coalition, Healthy Youth for the county, will include parents, youth, the school district, pediatricians, the hospital, health organizations, faith and community groups and the health department as a source of data. A steering group of seven will make decisions by consensus where possible and majority vote otherwise. Workgroups will handle youth engagement, communications and policy research.
Youth Involvement
A youth advisory group of high school students will shape messages and testify. Youth will be trained, supported and compensated with stipends, and their participation will be voluntary and protected from pressure.
What Partnerships Can Achieve
A review of collaborative partnerships found evidence that they can bring about community and system changes, such as new programs, policies and practices, while evidence for community-wide behavior change and population-level health outcomes was weaker, and it identified conditions that make partnerships more effective (Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). The coalition's first target, a policy change, is the kind of outcome partnerships achieve most reliably.
Measuring Participation
Community participation can be evaluated. A review of process evaluation for community participation examined who participates and why, the benefits and challenges of participation and the qualitative and quantitative methods used to measure it (Butterfoss, 2006). The coalition will track attendance by sector, youth participation, member satisfaction and actions completed, such as meetings with commissioners.
Power and Voice
Stakeholder maps can reproduce existing power, giving organized groups more weight than the families most affected. The coalition will hold listening sessions in the neighborhoods with the most retailers, offer Spanish interpretation and childcare and invite parents to join the steering group. Measuring who participates will show whether those efforts work.
Anticipated Arguments
Opponents will argue that licensing hurts small businesses, that federal law already covers the sales age and that youth will get products elsewhere. The coalition will answer with the fee's modest size, the gap in local enforcement and evidence that strong licensing is associated with lower youth use.
Conclusion
Mapping stakeholders revealed that the vote depends on two undecided commissioners and an undecided sheriff, whose concerns about cost and enforcement can be addressed by a fee that funds compliance checks. Lessons from California campaigns, a champion, youth voices and a coalition with clear roles form the strategy, with participation measured along the way.
References
Butterfoss, F. D. (2006). Process evaluation for community participation. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102207
Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369-402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369
Satterlund, T. D., Treiber, J., Haun, S., & Cassady, D. (2014). Evaluating local policy adoption campaigns in California: Tobacco retail license (TRL) adoption. Journal of Community Health, 39(3), 584-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-013-9803-9
What the MPH 570 Week 3 instructions ask
The third MPH 570 assignment often focuses on stakeholders and coalitions. Prompts may ask students to identify individuals, groups and organizations affected by or able to influence a policy, analyze their interests, positions, resources and influence, map them on a grid, identify potential allies and opponents and propose a coalition structure and engagement strategy. Some versions ask students to include the voices of affected communities directly. Include those voices wherever you can. Strong papers explain why each group holds its position, identify persuadable stakeholders, anticipate opposition arguments, plan how to involve people most affected and describe how the coalition will make decisions and measure its work.
How this MPH 570 Week 3 example is built
A planning meeting at the health department, where staff realize they know the supporters but not the persuadables, opens the paper. Stakeholders are identified in five groups: families and youth, health and education, businesses, government and enforcement and community organizations. Each is analyzed for interest, position, resources and influence and placed on a grid. The sheriff and two commissioners emerge as the key persuadable stakeholders. Lessons from California licensing campaigns shape the strategy. A coalition structure, youth involvement, roles and decision rules are proposed. Opposition arguments are anticipated. Measures of coalition participation and evidence on what partnerships can and cannot achieve close the paper, along with next steps toward the hearing.
MPH 570 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
The stakeholder week is typically graded on a thorough identification of stakeholders, insightful analysis of interests and influence and a workable coalition strategy. Graders look for a broad set of stakeholders, positions explained by interests, influence and resources assessed, a clear map or grid, persuadable stakeholders identified, opposition anticipated, affected communities included and a coalition structure with roles and measures. Evaluations of real campaigns strengthen the strategy. Explaining how to engage opponents respectfully earns credit. Attention to power and whose voices are heard also earns marks. The last points reward organized sections and accurate references. Papers that list stakeholders without analysis usually score lower, as do those that leave out the people most affected.
MPH 570 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
MPH 570 Week 3 papers often produce a long list of stakeholders with no sense of who matters most. For each group, ask what it cares about, what it stands to gain or lose, what resources it controls and how much influence it has over the decision makers. Place each on a grid of influence and position. Look hardest at the middle: stakeholders with influence who have not yet decided. Talk to people most affected, including youth, not just organizations speaking for them. Anticipate the strongest arguments against your policy and prepare honest answers. Finally, design a coalition with clear roles, a way to make decisions and a plan to track participation.
Related MPH 570 sample papers
Other MPH 570 week samples
- MPH 570 Week 1: Public Health Policy Process
- MPH 570 Week 2: Evidence for a Policy Issue
- 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 3: Epidemiologic Study Designs
- MPH 540 Week 3: Risk Assessment
- MPH 550 Week 3: Confidence Intervals and Tests
- MPH 560 Week 3: Access to Health Services
MPH 570 Week 3 questions, answered
What does MPH/570 Week 3 usually ask for?
The third policy paper often focuses on stakeholders and coalitions, identifying and analyzing stakeholders, mapping their influence and positions and designing a coalition strategy.
Where can I find a free MPH 570 Week 3 sample paper?
The stakeholder map and coalition plan above can be read free; notes explain each placement on the grid. Tell us your policy issue, and our opening paper for you is free.
What is a stakeholder analysis?
A systematic look at the people and organizations affected by or able to influence a policy, examining their interests, positions, resources and influence to plan engagement.
What helps local tobacco retail license campaigns succeed?
An evaluation of 22 California campaigns found successful ones assessed policy readiness, gathered local data, worked with a champion, built relationships with law enforcement and decision makers and educated the community.
Do collaborative partnerships improve community health?
A review found evidence that partnerships can produce community and system changes, such as new programs and policies, with less consistent evidence of population-level health outcomes.
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