| Course | DPH 820 Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Advocacy plan |
| Length | About 1,147 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 6
Five Votes by Spring: An Advocacy Plan to End Flavored Tobacco Sales in a Composite City
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 820: Public Health Policy and Advocacy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Five Votes by Spring: An Advocacy Plan to End Flavored Tobacco Sales in a Composite City
An advocacy plan converts a cause into a campaign: a specific policy goal, a named decision maker, a concrete ask and a sequence of actions with deadlines. This paper presents the plan for a composite city's campaign to adopt an ordinance ending every flavored tobacco sale in the city, menthol and vaping products included, by the end of spring.
Policy Goal
The campaign seeks an ordinance that prohibits the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol, in every retail setting, with enforcement through the city's tobacco retail license, penalties that fall on retailers rather than purchasers, a six-month transition and annual public reporting of compliance by neighborhood.
Why This Policy
Changing the context of people's choices reaches more of the population, and asks less of each person, than counseling or education does (Frieden, 2010). A sales restriction changes what young people can buy. Flavors drive initiation, with about 81% of youth who had used tobacco reporting a flavored first product (Ambrose et al., 2015), and a local ordinance in New York City was followed by lower youth use (Farley & Johns, 2017).
Targets
The primary targets are the four undecided council members whose votes will decide the outcome. Secondary targets are the council health committee chair, who controls scheduling, the mayor, whose neutrality matters, and state legislators from the city, who can help resist a preemption bill.
The Ask
To each undecided member, the ask is simple: vote yes on the comprehensive ordinance, including menthol, without amendments that exempt product types or delay enforcement beyond six months. To the committee chair, the ask is to schedule a hearing within eight weeks. To state legislators, the ask is to oppose any bill preempting local tobacco rules.
Allies and Opponents
Allies include the youth advisory board, pediatricians, school nurses, faith and civil rights leaders, the cancer and heart associations and parent groups. Opponents include the convenience store association and tobacco and vapor companies. The plan anticipates their arguments about lost sales and cross-border purchasing.
Core Messages
The core message is: flavors are how kids start, and the city can stop selling them. Supporting messages address fairness, since menthol marketing targeted Black neighborhoods, and effectiveness, since partial restrictions let youth substitute other products (Courtemanche et al., 2017). Each message opens with a shared value.
Tactics and Timeline
The table lists tactics, messengers, timing and indicators of progress.
| Tactic | Messenger | Timing | Progress indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meetings with undecided members | Constituent parents and youth | Days 1-45 | Four meetings held; stated positions recorded |
| Local evidence brief and retailer map | Health department on request | Day 14 | Brief delivered to all nine members |
| Media stories featuring youth voices | Youth advisory board | Days 15-70 | Six local stories |
| Petition and postcards by district | Coalition members | Days 15-56 | 1,500 signatures from undecided districts |
| Committee hearing testimony | Pediatrician, parent, youth, faith leader | Day 56 | Ordinance advanced to full council |
| Full council vote | All allies present | Day 84 | Five or more yes votes |
Media Plan
Media work will emphasize local stories set in a wider context: displays of candy-flavored products near schools, youth describing how friends started and pediatricians explaining nicotine's effects on the developing brain. Op-eds will be timed for the hearing week. Rapid responses will be prepared for common opposition claims.
Rules on Lobbying
Health department staff will provide evidence and technical assistance but will not ask members for votes. Nonprofit partners will track their lobbying time and expenses and stay within the limits that apply to charitable organizations. Youth and parents will speak as private citizens. A short guide will explain these rules to every partner.
Budget
The campaign budget is $42,000 from foundation and nonprofit sources: $15,000 for the youth board's media work and stipends, $10,000 for a part-time coordinator, $8,000 for printing and events, $5,000 for translation and $4,000 for evaluation. No public funds will be used for lobbying activities. Partners will report spending monthly to the coordinator.
Risks and Responses
Risks include amendments that exempt menthol or adult-only shops, a delayed hearing and a state preemption bill. Responses include pre-drafted arguments against each amendment, a backup date for the hearing and a statewide partnership prepared to testify in the capitol. The steering group will review risks weekly as the vote nears.
Measuring Progress
Progress will be tracked through stated positions of targets, meetings held, media stories, signatures gathered and the hearing date. Advocacy goals can take more than one attempt. Christoffel (2000) notes that advocacy is a process with products at each stage, so relationships built and evidence produced count even if the first vote fails.
After the Vote
If the ordinance passes, the campaign will shift to implementation: helping retailers prepare, supporting fair enforcement and preparing baseline data for evaluation. If it fails, the coalition will analyze why, maintain relationships and prepare for the next window.
Choosing the Ask Carefully
An ask that is too broad gives members room to agree in principle and vote no in practice; an ask that is too narrow wastes the public attention the campaign has built. Asking for a yes vote on the comprehensive ordinance, with named amendments to reject, gives members a clear choice and gives advocates a clear measure of success.
Anticipating Amendments
Likely amendments include exempting menthol, exempting adult-only vape shops and delaying enforcement for a year. For each, the campaign has prepared a short explanation of why it would undermine the ordinance, drawing on evidence that partial rules leave gaps, and a compromise it could accept, such as a longer transition for retailer inventory.
Roles in the Plan
The coalition coordinator manages the timeline, the youth board leads media, parent groups lead constituent contact, the health department supplies evidence on request and a volunteer attorney reviews ordinance language. Written role descriptions prevent duplication and help partners stay within lobbying rules.
Communication Within the Coalition
A weekly call and a shared tracker will keep partners informed of meetings held, members' stated positions and upcoming events. Rapid alerts will go out when opponents launch advertising or when the hearing date changes, so partners can respond within a day.
Theory of Change
The plan rests on a simple theory: undecided members vote yes when they hear from constituents they trust, see local evidence, believe the policy works elsewhere and judge the political cost of opposition to be higher than the cost of support. Each tactic in the table feeds one of these conditions, and the steering group will check which conditions remain unmet as the vote approaches.
Conclusion
The advocacy plan sets a precise policy goal, names the four undecided council members as primary targets, makes a specific ask and lays out tactics, messengers, timing and indicators. Grounded in evidence and in community power, and respectful of lobbying rules, it gives the campaign a clear path to five votes by spring.
References
Ambrose, B. K., Day, H. R., Rostron, B., Conway, K. P., Borek, N., Hyland, A., & Villanti, A. C. (2015). Flavored tobacco product use among US youth aged 12-17 years, 2013-2014. JAMA, 314(17), 1871-1873. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13802
Christoffel, K. K. (2000). Public health advocacy: Process and product. American Journal of Public Health, 90(5), 722-726. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.5.722
Courtemanche, C. J., Palmer, M. K., & Pesko, M. F. (2017). Influence of the flavored cigarette ban on adolescent tobacco use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), e139-e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019
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
Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health, 100(4), 590-595. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.185652
Reading the DPH 820 Module 6 assignment instructions
Aspen's DPH 820 description covers advocacy that moves decision makers to adopt policy, and because the sixth module's prompt stays within the classroom, this example writes a full advocacy plan. Advocacy plans generally require a policy goal, targets, an ask, allies and opponents, messages, dated tactics, costs and progress measures. State the goal in the terms the policy itself would use. Name individual decision makers. Make the ask something a person can say yes or no to. Put tactics in a table with dates and indicators. Explain lobbying rules for each partner. Plan for amendments and failure. Keep the whole plan to a length partners will read.
How the DPH 820 Module 6 example is put together
The plan opens with the policy goal and its rationale, then names targets and states the ask. Allies and opponents and core messages follow, with a four-column table of tactics, messengers, timing and progress indicators. Headings on the media plan, rules on lobbying, budget, risks and progress measures come next, followed by what happens after the vote. Choosing the ask, anticipating amendments, roles, internal communication and a theory of change fill the later pages. In the margin, a comment explains that stating the goal as ordinance terms shows what success looks like. The tactics table is the plan's spine: every later heading explains, funds or protects one of its rows.
Reading the DPH 820 Module 6 grading rubric
Advocacy plans earn marks for a precise goal, named targets, a clear ask, tactics linked to indicators, attention to rules and a realistic budget. Frieden's health impact pyramid and Christoffel's staged model of advocacy frame the plan, supported by youth tobacco data, a big-city evaluation and a study of product switching, each cited in APA style. The tactics table ties every action to a messenger, a week and a measure. Lobbying rules are explained for each type of partner. The theory of change shows why tactics should work, which instructors look for. Anticipated amendments are paired with prepared replies and acceptable compromises, showing the plan can adapt without losing its core. Instructors also value the plan for what happens after the vote.
DPH 820 Module 6 help from the desk
The most common error is a plan with a cause but no target or ask. Another is tactics with no dates or measures. Name the people who will decide. Write the ask as one sentence. Put tactics in a table with timing and indicators. Keep a budget line for translation and youth stipends. Separate public funds from lobbying. If your plan feels like a wish list, our tutors can help you trim it down to the handful of tactics most likely to move your targets. End with the date by which you expect a decision. Check that each tactic in your table has a named person responsible. Share the plan with partners before you submit it, since their corrections will make it more realistic.
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 5: Stakeholders, Power and Politics
- DPH 820 Module 7: Testimony to a City Council
- DPH 820 Module 8: Funding and Sustaining a Policy
- DPH 860 Module 3: Hypothesis Testing for Group Comparisons
- DPH 830 Module 7: International Organizations and Governance
- DPH 805 Module 3: Organizational Behavior Analysis
- DPH 810 Module 2: Documented Literature Search
DPH 820 Module 6 questions, answered
What does DPH 820 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 820 covers advocacy to affect policy, so an advocacy plan with a target and ask is a typical assignment. Confirm with your classroom prompt.
What is the ask in an advocacy plan?
The specific action you want a named decision maker to take, such as voting yes on a defined ordinance by a given date.
How do you measure advocacy progress?
Through intermediate indicators such as target positions, meetings, media coverage and hearing dates, as well as the final decision.
Where can I find a free DPH 820 Module 6 sample paper?
The complete advocacy plan is here, including its table of tactics, messengers, timing and progress indicators.
What makes a strong advocacy plan in DPH 820 Module 6?
A precise policy goal, named decision makers, a specific ask, tactics with dates and indicators, a budget, lobbying rules and plans for amendments and setbacks.