| Course | DPH 820 Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Testimony paper |
| Length | About 1,133 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 7
Three Minutes Before the Council: Written and Oral Testimony on Flavored Tobacco
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 820: Public Health Policy and Advocacy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Minutes Before the Council: Written and Oral Testimony on Flavored Tobacco
Testimony is where evidence meets decision makers in public. A witness has three minutes to speak and a few pages to submit, and must be accurate, clear and persuasive to people who will vote. This paper prepares written and oral testimony to a composite city council's health committee supporting the proposed end to flavored tobacco sales, and explains the choices behind it.
Purpose and Audience
The audience is the five-member health committee, whose recommendation goes to the full council, and the public watching the hearing. Two committee members are undecided. The testimony's purpose is to give those members a reason to vote yes they can explain to their constituents, and to answer the concerns they have raised privately about small businesses.
The Written Testimony
Good evening, Chair and committee members. I am a doctoral student in public health working with the city health department's chronic disease program, speaking today as a resident. I support the ordinance because flavors are how young people start using tobacco. In our city's latest youth survey, 18% of high school students used e-cigarettes in the past month, nearly all of them flavored.
The Written Testimony, Continued
National data show the same pattern: among young people who have used tobacco, about 81% started with a flavored product (Ambrose et al., 2015). Restricting sales works. When New York City limited flavored tobacco sales, fewer young people went on to try them (Farley & Johns, 2017). Including menthol matters, because when a national rule restricted other cigarette flavors, some teens shifted to menthol and cigars (Courtemanche et al., 2017).
The Written Testimony, Concluded
I understand the concern for small retailers, many of them family businesses. The ordinance gives six months to transition, penalizes stores rather than young people and asks the health department to support owners with signage and guidance. I urge you to advance the ordinance as written, including menthol, and I thank you for your time.
Matching Claims to Evidence
The table links each claim in the testimony to its source so that members and staff can verify it.
| Claim | Evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Local youth vaping is common | 18% past-month use among high school students | City youth survey (composite) |
| Flavors drive initiation | About 81% of youth tobacco users started with a flavor | Ambrose et al., 2015 |
| Sales restrictions reduce youth use | Lower odds of youth trying flavored products after restriction | Farley & Johns, 2017 |
| Menthol must be included | Youth shifted to menthol and cigars after a partial restriction | Courtemanche et al., 2017 |
The Oral Version
Three minutes allows about 400 spoken words. The oral version keeps one local number, one national number, one evaluation finding and one sentence on retailers, then states the ask. It opens with a shared value, protecting children in our city, and ends by repeating the request to advance the ordinance as written.
Anticipated Questions
Members may ask whether young people will simply buy flavored products in neighboring towns, whether adult smokers will be harmed and whether enforcement will burden police. Prepared answers note that restrictions reduced youth use despite nearby sales elsewhere, that cessation support is available for adults and that enforcement will run through retail licensing and health inspectors, not police.
Handling Hostile Questions
A member aligned with retailers may ask whether the witness has a financial interest or whether the study cited applies to this city. The answer will be direct: no financial interest, and the evidence comes from a large city with similar retail patterns. Admitting uncertainty where it exists protects credibility.
Coordination With Other Witnesses
The coalition will present five witnesses in a planned order: a pediatrician on health effects, a youth leader on how peers start, a parent on school incidents, a faith leader on menthol marketing and this witness on evidence of effect. Each will cover different ground so that the committee hears a complete case without repetition.
Delivery
Delivery will be slow and plain, with eye contact and no slides. The witness will practice aloud twice with a timer and once before coalition members who play skeptical council members. Printed copies of the written testimony, with the claims table, will be provided to the clerk in advance. The witness will arrive early, sign in and watch earlier testimony to adjust for questions members have already raised.
Evidence and the Policy Process
Brownson et al. (2009) note that policymakers draw on evidence about process and content as well as outcomes. The testimony therefore mentions other cities that have adopted similar rules and offers model ordinance language, giving members a sense that the step is established and workable.
Follow-Up After the Hearing
Within two days, the witness will send each committee member a thank-you note restating the ask and answering any question left open. Coalition partners will contact undecided members' offices to confirm constituent support before the committee vote.
Ethics of Testimony
A witness employed by the health department must be clear about the capacity in which they speak. This testimony is given as a resident and student, not on behalf of the department, and says so at the start. Accuracy matters more than persuasion: overstating the evidence would damage the witness's credibility and the department's reputation.
Written Versus Oral Choices
The written testimony carries detail the oral version cannot: sources, the claims table and a short answer to the retail concern. The oral version sacrifices detail for rhythm and memorability. Writing the longer version first and cutting it down ensures that every spoken sentence has support in the record.
The Letter Alternative
Some members respond better to a letter than to testimony. A one-page letter to each undecided member, signed by a constituent parent and a pediatrician from the district, will follow the hearing. It repeats the ask, answers the member's known concern and offers a meeting.
Accessibility
Testimony should be accessible to everyone watching. The written version will be posted online with plain-language summaries in English, Spanish and Vietnamese, and the youth witness will be offered help with preparation and transport so that participation does not depend on family resources.
What Makes Testimony Memorable
Members hear hours of testimony and remember little of it. They are more likely to remember one striking local fact, one concrete image and one clear request than a long list of statistics. The oral version therefore ends with a picture drawn from the youth board's store visits: a display of blue raspberry vapes beside the gum at a store two blocks from a middle school.
Conclusion
Effective testimony combines a clear ask, a few strong facts, respect for concerns and preparation for questions. The written and oral testimony prepared here gives undecided committee members a well-sourced reason to support the ordinance, coordinated with other witnesses and followed up after the hearing.
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
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
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
What the DPH 820 Module 7 instructions ask for
Aspen's catalog for DPH 820 covers the part public health staff play in shaping policy, and since the seventh module's wording is posted only for enrolled students, this sample prepares testimony to a policymaker. Testimony assignments usually ask for the testimony itself, an explanation of audience and purpose, evidence for each claim and preparation for questions. Write for the members who have not decided. Keep the oral version short and the written version sourced. Open with a shared value and close with the ask. Prepare answers to the hardest questions. State in what capacity you speak. Keep the written version to two pages. Speak slowly enough that members can follow without slides.
How this DPH 820 Module 7 example is built
The example sets out purpose and audience and then gives the written testimony in three parts. A three-column table matches each claim to its evidence and source. Headings on the oral version, anticipated questions and hostile questions follow, then coordination with other witnesses, delivery, evidence in the policy process and follow-up after the hearing. Ethics of testimony, written versus oral choices, a letter alternative, accessibility and what makes testimony memorable are added. A margin comment explains that naming the undecided members as the real audience shapes every choice. The conclusion restates what effective testimony combines. The written testimony is reproduced in full so readers can see how the oral version was cut from it.
DPH 820 Module 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Testimony papers are graded on clarity, accuracy, a specific ask, sourced claims, preparation for questions and awareness of audience. Sources, in APA format, cover how young people start with flavors, what happened after New York City restricted sales, how teens switched products after a federal rule and how evidence enters the policy process. The claims table lets members verify each statement. The oral version is realistically timed. Hostile questions are answered honestly. The witness's capacity is stated at the start, an ethical point graders look for when the writer works for an agency. Coordination with four other witnesses shows the testimony is part of a planned case rather than a lone statement. The follow-up letter keeps the ask alive after the hearing, a step many students forget.
DPH 820 Module 7 help from the desk
Students often write testimony as an essay, too long to deliver and too dense to follow. Others make claims they cannot source. Write the long version first, then cut to 400 spoken words. Keep one local fact, one national fact and one result. Source every claim in the written version. Rehearse with a timer. Prepare for the question you fear most. If delivery makes you nervous, a tutor can run a mock hearing with you. Close with the exact words of your ask. Bring printed copies for the clerk. Ask a friend to play a skeptical member and interrupt you. Watch a recorded hearing of your own council to learn its customs before you write.
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 6: An Advocacy Plan With Target and Ask
- DPH 820 Module 8: Funding and Sustaining a Policy
- DPH 805 Module 4: Systems Thinking and a Systems Map
- DPH 840 Module 8: Immersion and DPH Project Progress
- DPH 830 Module 6: Climate, Environmental and Occupational Health
- DPH 850 Module 6: Evaluating an Information System
DPH 820 Module 7 questions, answered
What does DPH 820 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 820 covers advocacy to affect policy, so testimony or a letter to a policymaker is a typical assignment. Follow your classroom prompt.
How long should oral testimony be?
Often three minutes, or about 400 spoken words, so it should focus on a few facts and a clear ask.
Should testimony cite sources?
Yes; a written version with sources lets members and staff verify each claim.
Where can I find a free DPH 820 Module 7 sample paper?
Written and oral testimony to a city council are posted above, along with a table matching each claim to its source.
How do you write testimony in DPH 820 Module 7?
Write for undecided members, open with a shared value, use a few sourced facts, address concerns, state a clear ask and prepare for questions.