| Course | MPH 500 Introduction to Public Health Systems, Organizations, & Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 500 Week 6
Stakeholder Analysis for a Cooling Tower Registration and Maintenance Ordinance in Harbor County, With Opposition Stated Fairly
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MPH 500: Introduction to Public Health Systems, Organizations, & Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Stakeholder Analysis for a Cooling Tower Registration and Maintenance Ordinance in Harbor County, With Opposition Stated Fairly
The Initiative
The initiative is a county ordinance requiring every cooling tower owner in Harbor County to list each tower with the health department, hold a written upkeep plan following the voluntary national building water standard and test for Legionella each quarter, paying an annual $150 registration fee that funds oversight. It follows more than a doubling of reported Legionnaires' disease over five years, to 31 cases in 2025, and a 2025 cluster whose source could not be found because the county had no list of its towers. The analysis below names organizations and roles, not categories such as the community, because only organizations and people hold interests and take positions.
The Map
Table 1
Stakeholders in the Cooling Tower Ordinance, Harbor County
| Stakeholder | What it wants | What the ordinance would do to it | Influence, as capacity | Likely position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harbor County Board of Commissioners | Visible action after the 2025 deaths without alienating property owners | Gives a decision to make and a vote to defend | Adopts or rejects the ordinance | Undecided |
| Health department, epidemiology and environmental health | Ability to find and prevent sources | Adds authority, a fee-funded half-time post and a registry | Drafts the ordinance; testifies | Support |
| City building department | Avoid new unfunded duties | Asks it to share permit records | Holds the only existing tower list | Neutral if no new work |
| Harbor Apartment Owners Association | Low operating costs for members | Adds a fee and about $1,200 a year in testing per tower | Organized; members attend hearings | Oppose as drafted |
| Office building managers' chapter | Predictable compliance rules | Adds paperwork; most already contract water treatment | Respected by commissioners | Conditional support |
| Water treatment firms | More business | Creates demand for testing and plans | Technical expertise; can offer bundled pricing | Support |
| Industrial district business association | Avoid being blamed for the 2025 cluster | Brings inspection to its members' rooftops | Influential with two commissioners | Oppose quietly |
| Harbor Tenants Union | Safe buildings for renters | Protects residents near towers; landlords may pass on costs | Mobilizes residents for hearings | Support, with concern about rent |
| Harbor Regional Medical Center infection prevention | Fewer community cases | Little direct effect; already runs its own program under federal rules | Credible clinical voice | Support |
| State health department Legionella program | Better local data | Gives a local registry to support investigations | Technical guidance; no authority over the vote | Support |
Note. Note. Organizations are composites. Influence describes capacity to affect the outcome, not importance.
What Each One Wants, and Stands to Lose
The interests diverge in predictable ways. The apartment owners association stands to lose the most money: its members own many of the older towers, often without maintenance contracts, and the testing cost falls on them. The office building managers already pay water treatment firms under contracts that include some testing, so for them the ordinance mainly adds registration and reporting. The industrial district business association has a different worry: its members' rooftops ring the area of the 2025 cluster, and a registry would make it possible to identify a source next time, possibly one of theirs. The tenants union wants protection for renters but fears that owners will pass the testing cost into rents. The hospital's infection prevention team has the least at stake directly, since it already runs a water management program required for its own building (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2017), but it sees the community cases the ordinance aims to prevent.
Opposition, Stated Fairly
The apartment owners' objection deserves its strongest form. Many older complexes run on thin margins, and $1,350 a year per tower for a problem that produced 31 cases in a county of 412,000 is a real cost, especially for owners with no history of outbreaks. They will argue that a requirement written after a large city's outbreak does not fit a smaller county, and that the money would do more good spent on other maintenance. This is a reasonable position. The response is not to dismiss it but to show that the county cannot currently tell well-maintained towers from neglected ones, and that a registry with testing is how good owners demonstrate they are not the problem. A local testing mandate elsewhere succeeded largely through education of building managers rather than penalties (Whitney et al., 2017), which suggests the association could be a partner in implementation rather than only an opponent.
The industrial association's opposition is quieter and should be named as such: it is unlikely to testify against public health, but it may lobby two commissioners privately to delay the vote or exempt commercial buildings.
An exemption for commercial buildings would leave out many of the towers nearest the 2025 cases, so the health department should be ready to show the board where those towers sit before any amendment is offered.
Influence as Capacity
Influence is measured by what a stakeholder can actually do. The board of commissioners decides, by a simple majority of its five elected members. The apartment owners association can fill a hearing room and has members in every district. The industrial association has direct access to two commissioners. The tenants union can bring residents of the most affected tracts to testify. The health department can draft the ordinance and provide evidence, including the failed 2025 search. The building department, though neutral, controls the starting inventory, so its cooperation determines how fast registration can begin.
Engagement That Differs
Each stakeholder needs a different approach. The apartment owners association should be offered a phase-in of testing over the first year, a reduced fee for single-tower buildings and a role in drafting owner guidance. The office managers should be shown that existing contracts can satisfy the testing requirement with little change. The industrial association should hear plainly that the registry protects members who maintain their towers by allowing investigators to rule them out quickly. The tenants union should be asked to testify about the 2025 cluster and offered language limiting cost pass-through in rent-regulated units. The water treatment firms should be asked to publish standard pricing for small owners. The building department should be asked for its permit list by a set date, with the health department doing all the follow-up work. Outbreak reviews showing that preventable water management failures underlie most outbreaks (Garrison et al., 2016) give each conversation a common starting point.
References
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2017). Requirement to reduce Legionella risk in healthcare facility water systems to prevent cases and outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease (LD) (Ref: S&C 17-30). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Garrison, L. E., Kunz, J. M., Cooley, L. A., Moore, M. R., Lucas, C., Schrag, S., Sarisky, J., & Whitney, C. G. (2016). Vital signs: Deficiencies in environmental control identified in outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease: North America, 2000-2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65(22), 576-584. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6522e1
Whitney, E. A., Blake, S., & Berkelman, R. L. (2017). Implementation of a Legionella ordinance for multifamily housing, Garland, Texas. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 23(6), 601-607. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000518
What the MPH 500 Week 6 assignment asks for
Name organizations and roles rather than categories such as the community or providers, which cannot hold interests or take positions. For each stakeholder, state what it wants, what the initiative would do to it, how much influence it has, measured as capacity to affect the outcome, and its likely position. Include opponents and state their case fairly, at its strongest. Look for quiet opposition that may work privately rather than in public. Notice who stands to lose and who would bear costs. Then design engagement that differs by stakeholder, according to what each wants or fears, rather than a single outreach plan. Avoid analyses in which every stakeholder benefits, which usually means nobody asked who pays. Close by saying how the map changes the initiative's plan.
How this MPH 500 Week 6 example is built
The sample states the initiative and why it names organizations rather than categories. A ten-row table gives each stakeholder's wants, effects, influence and position, from the health department's support to the apartment owners association's opposition. A section explains diverging interests, such as owners' testing costs and the industrial association's worry about being identified as a source. The opposition section states the owners' case at full strength, $1,350 a year per tower for 31 cases, then answers it with the county's inability to tell good towers from bad. The industrial association's private lobbying is named. Influence is described as capacity, and the engagement section offers phase-ins, contract guidance, reassurance and testimony requests tailored to each group.
Where the points sit in the MPH 500 Week 6 rubric
The heaviest loss is the list of everybody: patients, providers, government, the community and the public, none of which can hold an interest or take a position. The second is an analysis where every stakeholder benefits, which either describes a proposal that costs nothing or has not asked who pays. Marks are also lost for interests assumed rather than reasoned, for opponents built weak so they can be dismissed and for engagement that is the same for everyone. Graders reward analyses that name organizations, show what the initiative does to each, state opposition fairly, notice quiet opponents and tailor engagement to each stakeholder's interests. A quiet opponent named accurately is worth more than a long list of supporters.
Common MPH 500 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Stakeholder analyses are most useful when they are honest about who loses. Share the initiative and the organizations around it, and the analysis can name each one, say what it wants and what the initiative would do to it, describe its influence as real capacity, state opponents' best arguments and design engagement that fits each party. Spotting the opponent who will not testify but may lobby privately is often the most valuable line. The initiative and the organizations come from your own setting. Tailoring engagement to each stakeholder, rather than using one outreach plan, is usually where these analyses earn their grade.
Get a MPH-500 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 6 instructions with the template your section uses and the initiative you are analyzing, and a custom example is built into that format and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Which stakeholders matter most stays your call.
More MPH 500 papers and MPH samples
- MPH 500 Week 1: Upstream Walk Post
- MPH 500 Week 2: Public Health Systems Analysis
- MPH 500 Week 3: Agency Profile
- MPH 500 Week 4: Essential Services Analysis
- MPH 500 Week 5: Policy Brief Memo
- MPH 500 Week 7: Program Evaluation Plan
- MPH 500 Week 8: Synthesis Presentation
MPH 500 Week 6 questions, answered
How do I find out what a stakeholder wants?
From what they publish and what they have done before. Position statements, testimony, past responses to similar proposals and organizational strategy all reveal interest more reliably than assumption does. Where you are inferring, mark it as inference, because a document separating established positions from estimated ones is far more usable than one asserting all of them with the same confidence.
Should opponents really be included?
Always, and stated fairly. An analysis presenting opposition as ignorance or bad faith gives a reader nothing to work with, since you cannot plan around a position you have not understood. Most opposition to public health measures rests on a genuine interest, whether cost, autonomy or a competing priority, and naming it accurately is what makes the analysis useful.
Why does engagement have to differ?
Because stakeholders want different things and can offer different things. A regulator needs evidence and a legal basis; a community organization needs to know its members will not carry the cost; a business association needs the compliance burden quantified. A single consultation designed for all of them is designed for none, which is the finding this section exists to produce.
Where can I find a free MPH 500 Week 6 sample paper?
The complete stakeholder analysis for a cooling tower ordinance, with opposition stated fairly, is available on this page.
Who is the quiet opponent in the MPH 500 Week 6 sample?
The industrial district business association, whose members' rooftops ring the 2025 cluster and which may lobby commissioners privately.