| Course | DPH 820 Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder and power analysis |
| Length | About 1,108 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 820 Module 5
Counting Votes and Mapping Power: Stakeholder Politics of a Flavored Tobacco Ordinance
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 820: Public Health Policy and Advocacy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Counting Votes and Mapping Power: Stakeholder Politics of a Flavored Tobacco Ordinance
Good evidence does not pass ordinances; votes do. Behind each vote sit relationships, interests and pressures that advocates must understand before they act. This paper analyzes the stakeholders, power and politics surrounding a composite city's proposed ordinance ending flavored tobacco sales, and draws out what the analysis means for strategy.
Method
Stakeholder analysis identifies the people and groups with an interest in a policy, assesses their position, influence and level of interest, and uses the results to plan engagement. Brugha and Varvasovszky (2000) describe it as a tool with roots in political science and management that helps policymakers and advocates anticipate support and resistance. Information here came from council records, news coverage and interviews with coalition partners.
Stakeholder Table
The table rates each stakeholder's position on the ordinance, influence over the outcome and interest in the issue.
| Stakeholder | Position | Influence | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Council health committee chair | Supportive | High | High |
| Council members from retail-heavy districts | Undecided | High | Moderate |
| Mayor | Neutral publicly | High | Low |
| Convenience store association | Opposed | Moderate | High |
| Tobacco and vapor companies | Opposed | Moderate (indirect) | High |
| Youth advisory board | Supportive | Moderate | High |
| Pediatricians and school nurses | Supportive | Moderate | Moderate |
| School district | Supportive but cautious | Moderate | Moderate |
Counting Votes
The council has nine members; five votes pass the ordinance. Three members are publicly supportive, two are likely opposed and four are undecided. Two of the undecided members represent districts with many convenience stores, and two represent districts where parents have raised concerns about vaping in schools. The path to five runs through these four.
Sources of Power
Power takes several forms. Council members hold formal authority. Retailers hold economic influence and personal relationships with members. The tobacco industry holds money for advertising and lobbying. Young people and parents hold moral authority and the power of constituents who vote. Clinicians hold expert credibility. Advocates must mobilize the forms of power they have against those they lack.
The Opposition
The convenience store association will argue that flavored products account for a meaningful share of sales and that customers will cross into neighboring towns. Tobacco and vapor companies may fund advertising, organize retailer turnout at hearings and support a state bill that would preempt local tobacco rules. Preemption is the most serious threat because it could erase any local ordinance.
Answering Economic Concerns
Retail concerns deserve a factual answer. Evaluation of New York City's flavored tobacco sales restriction relied on compliance checks and youth surveys and found lower youth use afterward (Farley & Johns, 2017). The campaign will offer retailers a transition period, help with signage and a clear enforcement schedule, and it will collect local sales data where available. Retailers who feel heard are less likely to organize against the ordinance.
Organizational Politics Inside the Department
Politics also operate within the health department. The health officer supports the ordinance but reports to the mayor, who wants to avoid a public fight with small businesses. Staff in the environmental health division, who would enforce the rule, worry about workload. Early meetings with that division and a request for enforcement funding reduce internal resistance.
Coalition Dynamics
Coalitions multiply power but bring their own politics. Butterfoss et al. (1993) note that coalitions succeed when they have clear goals, shared leadership, formal structures and member benefits. The flavored tobacco coalition includes groups with different priorities: the cancer society focuses on adult smoking, the youth board on vaping and faith leaders on menthol marketing. A shared ask keeps them united.
Undecided Members
For each undecided member, the campaign will map what the member cares about, who they listen to and what would make a yes vote easier. One member coached youth sports and may respond to young athletes. Another faces reelection and needs to hear from constituents. Tailored contact through trusted local voices matters more than volume.
Timing and Windows
Politics moves in windows. A recent news story about vaping incidents at two high schools has raised public concern, and the council's budget cycle closes in four months. Advocates will aim for a committee hearing within two months while attention is high and before budget negotiations crowd the agenda.
Evidence in a Political Setting
Brownson et al. (2009) distinguish evidence about the policy process, the content of policy and its outcomes. Council members need all three: knowledge of how similar cities adopted rules, model ordinance language and evidence of effect. Preparing each type of evidence for the stakeholders who will use it turns research into political resources.
Risks in the Analysis
Stakeholder ratings are judgments and can be wrong. Positions shift as coverage changes and as opponents act. The analysis will be updated monthly by the steering group, and coalition members will report new information from their own networks.
Implications for Strategy
The analysis points to four moves: concentrate on the four undecided members, bring constituents and trusted local messengers to them, address retailer concerns with a transition plan and prepare to oppose state preemption with partners across the state. It also suggests keeping the mayor informed privately rather than forcing a public position early.
Power Among Allies
Power imbalances exist inside the coalition too. Large health charities have budgets, staff and relationships that the youth board and neighborhood groups lack. Without attention, the best-resourced partners set the agenda. The steering group's voting rules and the youth board's budget are designed to keep smaller partners' influence real.
Relationships With Council Staff
Council staff draft amendments, schedule meetings and brief members, often with more influence than their titles suggest. Advocates will build working relationships with the staff of the four undecided members, offering accurate answers quickly and never surprising them with public claims they have not seen.
Reading Signals
Politicians rarely state positions plainly before a vote. Signals include which constituents a member agrees to meet, whether they co-sponsor related measures and how they describe the issue in newsletters. The campaign will record these signals after each contact to refine its vote count.
Mapping Change Over Time
A stakeholder map is a snapshot. The steering group will redraw it after the committee hearing and again before the full vote, marking members who moved and asking what moved them. Comparing maps shows which tactics shifted positions and which did not, lessons the coalition can carry into its next campaign, whether on tobacco or another issue.
Conclusion
The flavored tobacco ordinance will be decided by nine council members influenced by retailers, industry, constituents and experts. Mapping position, influence and interest reveals a narrow path to five votes and a serious preemption threat. With the analysis updated as politics shift, advocates can target their efforts where they matter most.
References
Brownson, R. C., Chriqui, J. F., & Stamatakis, K. A. (2009). Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1576-1583. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224
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
Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research, 8(3), 315-330. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/8.3.315
Farley, S. M., & Johns, M. (2017). New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tobacco Control, 26(1), 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052418
DPH 820 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
Community and organizational politics are part of Aspen's catalog description for DPH 820, and with the fifth module's prompt shown only to enrolled students, this sample carries out a stakeholder and power analysis. These assignments usually ask you to identify stakeholders, rate their position, influence and interest, explain the sources of power in play and draw strategic conclusions. Explain where your ratings come from. Count votes if a body will decide. Look inside your own organization as well as outside it. Name the opposition's likely tactics. Treat the analysis as something you will update, and end with specific strategic moves. Remember that stakeholder positions can change within weeks.
How this DPH 820 Module 5 example is built
The example explains its method and presents a four-column stakeholder table before counting votes on the council. It then covers sources of power, the opposition and answers to economic concerns, followed by politics inside the health department and coalition dynamics. Undecided members, timing, evidence in a political setting and risks in the analysis come next. Power among allies, relationships with council staff, reading signals and mapping change over time follow. The margin comment notes that citing where each rating came from shows the analysis rests on evidence. Implications for strategy and a conclusion close the paper. Every actor listed in the table returns in the narrative, so ratings are explained rather than simply asserted. The vote count is updated in the text as the paper moves from ratings to strategy.
DPH 820 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Stakeholder analyses are graded on a sound method, complete identification of actors, defensible ratings, insight into power and a clear link to strategy. This analysis cites a review of stakeholder analysis, a classic paper on community coalitions, a framework for evidence-based policy and an evaluation of a city flavored tobacco restriction in APA format. The table is specific to the issue. The vote count makes the path to success concrete. Internal politics and preemption show depth. A plan to redraw the map shows the author understands that positions change. Graders also credit the attention paid to power imbalances among allies, which many analyses overlook.
DPH 820 Module 5 help from the desk
Students often list stakeholders without rating them or drawing conclusions. Others forget the politics inside their own agency. Rate each actor on position, influence and interest. Count votes. Identify the opposition's strongest move. Look at power imbalances among allies too. State what the analysis tells you to do next. If you are unsure how to rate influence, a tutor can help you weigh formal authority, money, relationships and constituent pressure for each actor. Finish with the three stakeholders whose positions matter most. Record the date of each rating so you can see how positions move. Treat council staff as stakeholders in their own right, since they often shape what members see first.
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 Aspen University 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.
More DPH 820 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 820 Module 1: Advocacy Roles in Public Health
- DPH 820 Module 2: The Right to Health as a Framework
- DPH 820 Module 3: Consumer Power and Community Voice
- DPH 820 Module 4: Framing a Public Health Issue
- DPH 820 Module 6: An Advocacy Plan With Target and Ask
- DPH 820 Module 7: Testimony to a City Council
- DPH 820 Module 8: Funding and Sustaining a Policy
- DPH 801 Module 5: Choosing a Theory for a Population
- DPH 870 Module 8: Chapter 2 of the Capstone
- DPH 830 Module 8: Human Rights and Ethics in Global Health
- DPH 840 Module 8: Immersion and DPH Project Progress
DPH 820 Module 5 questions, answered
What does DPH 820 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 820 covers community and organizational politics, so a stakeholder and power analysis is a typical assignment. Follow your classroom prompt.
What is preemption?
A higher level of government passing a law that prevents local governments from adopting their own, stricter rules.
How do you rate stakeholders?
By their position on the policy, their influence over the decision and their interest in the issue, using sources such as records, news and interviews.
Where can I find a free DPH 820 Module 5 sample paper?
The stakeholder and power analysis appears above with a table rating eight stakeholders on position, influence and interest.
What does a stakeholder analysis include in DPH 820 Module 5?
Each stakeholder's position, influence and interest, the sources of power involved, likely opposition tactics and the strategic moves the analysis suggests.