| Course | MPH 570 Public Health Policy and Leadership (MPH/570) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Collaboration plan |
| Length | about 1,161 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 5
After the Three-to-Two Vote: A Collaboration Plan Linking the Health Department, Sheriff, Retailers, Schools, Cities and Youth to Implement a Tobacco Retail License
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MPH/570: Public Health Policy and Leadership
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The county, the vote, its partners, agreements, youth research team and figures are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources cited.
The ordinance passed three to two in December, with a six-month delay before enforcement began. The next morning, the health director told her staff that the harder work was starting: a license on paper would do little unless the health department, the sheriff, retailers, schools, cities and the community carried it out together. This paper presents the collaboration plan for that work.
Why Collaboration Is Essential
No single organization can implement the ordinance. The health department issues licenses and educates retailers; the sheriff conducts compliance checks; the county attorney handles penalties and appeals; retailers train staff; schools report concerns; cities decide whether to adopt matching ordinances; and the community, including youth, provides legitimacy and information.
The Partners and Their Roles
The health department will manage licensing, the database, retailer education and reporting. The sheriff's office will send trained underage buyers into every licensed store no fewer than twice annually. The county attorney will process violations and appeals. The treasurer will collect fees and transfer enforcement funds to the sheriff. The school district will share information about products found on campuses. The coalition will support communication and community input.
A Written Implementation Agreement
The key commitments will be formalized in a memorandum of understanding between the health department and sheriff's office, specifying the number of checks, protocols for underage buyers, data sharing, funding transfers and schedules. Written agreements survive personnel changes better than informal understandings.
Retailers as Partners
Retailers are regulated parties, but they can also be partners. The department will offer free training on age verification, signage in English and Spanish and a retailer advisory group that meets twice a year to raise implementation problems. Treating responsible retailers with respect encourages compliance.
Cities
Three cities lie within the county. The coalition will present the county's plan to each city council and offer a model ordinance and shared enforcement through the sheriff under intergovernmental agreements, so that youth cannot simply cross a city line to buy.
The Six-Month Runway
The delay before enforcement is an asset. During those months, the department will build the license database, open online applications, mail notices to every known retailer and hold four training sessions. The sheriff's office will train deputies and recruit underage buyers through a youth program with parental consent. A soft launch in the final month will let retailers apply without penalty and let partners test data sharing.
Governance
An implementation committee with representatives from each partner, two retailers, two parents and two youth will meet quarterly. It will review compliance data, resolve problems and recommend changes. Decisions affecting enforcement protocols require agreement of the health department and sheriff; other decisions are made by majority.
Communication
A shared dashboard will show licenses issued, checks completed and violations by area. A monthly email update will go to all partners, and a public report will be released each year. Retailers will receive their own short update with training dates and common questions, so the people most affected by the ordinance hear about changes first.
Conflict Resolution
Disagreements are expected, for example over penalties for a first violation or the pace of checks. Disputes will first go to the committee; unresolved issues will go to the health director and sheriff jointly, and then to the commissioners if necessary.
Community-Based Participatory Research
The plan uses community-based participatory research to evaluate the ordinance with young people. That approach bridges science and practice through community engagement and social action to increase health equity, using strategies that redress power imbalances, facilitate mutual benefit among community and academic partners and promote reciprocal translation of knowledge (Wallerstein & Duran, 2010). Young people will not only be subjects of the evaluation; they will help design it.
The Youth Research Team
Eight high school students, paid stipends and trained by a local university, will help design survey questions, map retailer advertising near schools and interpret results with staff. They will co-present findings to commissioners.
Keeping Law Enforcement Engaged
The sheriff's partnership needs care. Among 22 California projects seeking retail licenses, the ones that succeeded had cultivated ties with police, sheriffs and elected officials, while projects struggled with budget cuts, staffing and complaints that police time should go to more pressing public safety needs (Satterlund et al., 2014). The plan answers that concern directly: fees pay for the deputies' hours, checks are scheduled in advance and the sheriff's office receives public credit in each annual report.
Sustaining Enforcement
The central risk is that enforcement fades. A Cochrane review found that retailer interventions can lead to large decreases in outlets selling to youth, but few communities sustained high compliance, which may explain limited effects on youth access and smoking (Stead & Lancaster, 2005). The plan therefore funds checks from fees, sets a minimum number in the agreement and reports them publicly.
Shared Measures
All partners will track the same measures: licenses issued, percentage of retailers checked at least twice a year, compliance failure rate, violations resolved, retailers trained and, every two years, student survey results on ease of getting products and use.
Power and Trust
The health department and sheriff control money and authority. Community members on the committee need real influence: the committee will set the annual evaluation questions, and parents and youth will review draft reports before release. Trust will be built by following through on commitments and sharing data openly.
Learning From the First Year
Twelve months in, the committee will review what worked and what did not: whether checks reached every retailer, whether violations were resolved promptly and whether retailers found the process fair. The youth research team will present its findings on advertising near schools. The committee will recommend adjustments to the commissioners, keeping the ordinance responsive rather than fixed.
Sustainability
Partnerships often falter when champions leave. The written agreement, the committee structure, fee-based funding and an annual public report are designed to outlast individuals. The committee will orient new members each year.
Handling a Difficult Case
The committee also prepared for the first contested violation. If a small store owner appeals a suspension, the county attorney will handle the legal process, while the health department offers the owner training and a path to reinstatement. Keeping the legal and educational roles separate lets partners enforce the law firmly while still treating retailers as members of the community.
Risks
Risks include inconsistent checks due to staffing, retailer resistance, cities declining to join and youth disengagement. Each will be monitored through shared measures and discussed quarterly.
Conclusion
Passing the ordinance was the beginning. Implementing it requires the health department, sheriff, attorney, retailers, schools, cities and community to work together under a written agreement, shared governance and shared measures. Participatory research gives youth a real role, lessons from California show why the sheriff must stay a willing partner and evidence on enforcement shows why sustaining compliance checks is the plan's first priority.
References
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
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
Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2010). Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S40-S46. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036
What the MPH 570 Week 5 instructions ask
The fifth MPH 570 assignment usually addresses collaboration between community and government partners. Prompts may ask students to identify partners needed to implement or sustain a policy or program, define roles and responsibilities, design governance and communication structures, address power, trust and conflict, apply a participatory approach such as community-based participatory research and plan shared measures and evaluation. Some versions focus on a partnership that already exists; if yours does, explain how it began and what it has achieved. Strong plans assign concrete responsibilities, formalize agreements, give community members real decision power, prepare for conflict, align measures across partners and plan for sustaining the collaboration beyond its first year.
How this MPH 570 Week 5 example is built
The morning after the ordinance passed three to two, the health director realizes the harder work is starting; that moment opens the paper. The partners needed for implementation are identified: the health department, sheriff's office, county attorney, retailers, school district, city councils, the coalition and a youth research team. Roles are defined in a shared implementation agreement. Governance, communication and conflict resolution structures are designed. Principles of community-based participatory research guide youth involvement in evaluation. Lessons on keeping law enforcement engaged and on sustaining retailer compliance shape the plan. Shared measures, a sustainability plan and risks close the paper, including what happens if a city declines to join or a key partner leaves.
MPH 570 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
In the collaboration week, grading usually looks for clear roles, realistic governance and meaningful community participation. Graders look for partners identified with specific responsibilities, formal agreements, decision-making and communication structures, attention to power, trust and conflict, a participatory approach supported by literature, shared measures and a plan for sustaining the collaboration. Research on partnerships and participatory methods strengthens the plan. Giving affected community members real authority, not only advisory roles, earns credit. Planning for turnover among partners also earns marks. The remaining points reward organized structure and correct references. Plans that list partners without defining what each will do usually score lower, and so do plans that give community members only token seats.
MPH 570 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
Many MPH 570 Week 5 papers list partners and stop. For each partner, write down exactly what it will do, by when and with what resources, and put the key commitments in a written agreement. Decide how decisions are made and how disagreements are handled before the first dispute arises. Look at power: who controls money, data and authority, and how community members can share it. Use participatory approaches that give affected people roles in planning and evaluation. Agree on a few shared measures that every partner reports. Finally, plan for people leaving, since partnerships often fail when a champion changes jobs rather than when the idea stops working.
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 3: Stakeholders and Coalitions
- MPH 570 Week 4: Legislative Advocacy Strategy
- MPH 570 Week 6: Leadership for Policy Change
More MPH sample papers
- MPH 530 Week 5: Outbreak Investigation
- MPH 540 Week 5: Hierarchy of Controls
- MPH 550 Week 5: Correlation and Regression
- MPH 560 Week 5: Public Health Workforce
MPH 570 Week 5 questions, answered
What does MPH/570 Week 5 usually ask for?
The fifth policy paper usually addresses collaboration among community and government partners, defining roles, governance, participation, shared measures and sustainability.
Where can I find a free MPH 570 Week 5 sample paper?
Anyone may read the ordinance collaboration plan above free; margin notes describe each partner's role. Describe your partnership, and we write the opening paper at no charge.
What is community-based participatory research?
A research approach in which community members and academic or institutional partners share power throughout the research process, aiming for mutual benefit, shared knowledge and action to improve health equity.
Why does law enforcement matter to a tobacco retail license?
Compliance checks usually depend on police or sheriff's deputies; California campaigns that built relationships with law enforcement tended to succeed, while concerns about police workload were a common obstacle.
Why is sustained enforcement important for tobacco sales laws?
A Cochrane review found interventions with retailers can greatly reduce illegal sales, but few communities sustained high compliance, which may explain limited effects on youth access and smoking.
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