| Course | NR 436 Community, Public, and Population Health Nursing |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Policy brief (memo) |
| Length | About 850 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 436 Week 7
Memorandum
To: Linden Hollow Town Council, Public Health and Safety Committee
From: Student Name, RN, BSN student, Chamberlain University College of Nursing
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Policy brief: Adopt a tobacco retail license that keeps new vape retailers 1,000 feet from schools and ends flavored e-cigarette sales
The Request
The Public Health and Safety Committee is asked to recommend that the full Council adopt, before the start of the next school year, an amendment to the town's existing tobacco retail license ordinance that does two things: prohibits new tobacco and vapor retail licenses within 1,000 feet of a school, and prohibits the sale of flavored e-cigarette products, other than tobacco flavor, by any licensed retailer in the town. Existing retailers within the buffer would keep their licenses; the flavor restriction would apply to all retailers after a six-month transition.
The Committee has the authority to act. The town already requires a retail license to sell tobacco products under an ordinance it passed four years ago, and amending the conditions of that license is within its power without new state legislation.
Why It Matters in Linden Hollow
Linden Hollow's high school students vape at a rate well above the state and the nation. On the most recent district youth survey, 16.8 per 100 high school students reported using an e-cigarette in the past 30 days, nearly half again the statewide figure of 11.2 per 100 and well over the national figure of 10.0 per 100 (Birdsey et al., 2023). Among students who vape, 31 per 100 use on most days, a pattern consistent with nicotine dependence. The district recorded 104 vaping suspensions last year.
Two local conditions make access easy. The town has licensed seven retailers that sell vapor products, and three of those storefronts stand less than half a mile from a secondary school campus. Both dedicated vape shops display fruit- and candy-flavored products in their windows. Nationally, nearly nine in ten high school students who currently vape use flavored products (Birdsey et al., 2023), and the Surgeon General has identified flavors as a leading reason young people start (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016). The students most affected are in the town's own schools, and the products they use are sold within walking distance of those schools.
Options Considered
Option 1, no change: Continue enforcement of the age-21 purchase law through existing compliance checks. No cost to the town; no expected change in youth use, since the district survey shows most students obtain devices from friends and older siblings who can buy legally.
Option 2, school buffer only: Prohibit new licenses within 1,000 feet of schools. Low cost and politically modest; limits future growth near schools but does not reduce the products available at the existing seven retailers.
Option 3, flavor restriction only: End the sale of flavored e-cigarettes at all licensed retailers. Addresses the products most used by young people; affects existing businesses and invites the objection discussed below.
Option 4, recommended: buffer plus flavor restriction: Combines Options 2 and 3, protecting the school zone from new retailers while reducing the appeal of the products already sold. Enforcement uses the existing license inspection process at no new staffing cost.
The Objection the Committee Will Raise
The strongest objection is that restricting flavored e-cigarettes may push some young people back to cigarettes. The objection has evidence behind it: after San Francisco banned flavored tobacco sales, one analysis found that the odds of high school students reporting recent cigarette smoking rose relative to other school districts (Friedman, 2021). The Committee should take that finding seriously. Two features of this proposal respond to it. First, it keeps tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes available to adults, which preserves a less harmful option for adult smokers trying to switch. Second, the restriction is paired with the high school's new nurse-led cessation program, so students who are dependent are offered help to quit rather than simply losing access to their product. The Council should also ask the district to track cigarette smoking on the next youth survey alongside vaping, so that any substitution is detected and the policy can be revisited.
A second objection is the effect on local businesses. The two dedicated vape shops would lose flavored sales. That cost is real, and the six-month transition is intended to allow them to adjust their stock. The Committee may reasonably weigh that cost against the health of the town's adolescents, which is the choice this brief asks it to make.
Recommended Next Steps
The Committee is asked to direct the town attorney to draft the amendment, to schedule a public hearing within 60 days at which students, parents, retailers and school nurses may speak, and to request that the school district report e-cigarette and cigarette use from the next biennial youth survey to the Council, with the current figures of 16.8 per 100 and 1.9 per 100 as the baselines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) recommends combining policy change with community programs and evaluation, and this proposal is designed to fit that model within the Council's existing authority.
References
Birdsey, J., Cornelius, M., Jamal, A., Park-Lee, E., Cooper, M. R., Wang, J., Sawdey, M. D., Cullen, K. A., & Neff, L. (2023). Tobacco product use among U.S. middle and high school students: National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2023. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(44), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7244a1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Friedman, A. S. (2021). A difference-in-differences analysis of youth smoking and a ban on sales of flavored tobacco products in San Francisco, California. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(8), 863-865. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0922
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). E-cigarette use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health.
What the NR 436 Week 7 assignment asks for
The Week 7 brief has you write a policy brief advocating for a policy that addresses your community's priority problem. Instructors generally want a clear request to a named decision-maker, the local problem with data, policy options, a recommendation, the strongest objection and a response, next steps and APA. Open with the ask: who, what and by when. Confirm the recipient has the authority to act. Show why the problem matters locally, with figures. Present the options fairly, including doing nothing, with what each costs and delivers. Recommend one and say why. Meet the objection the reader will certainly raise, acknowledging its evidence. End with steps the reader can take.
How the NR 436 Week 7 example is put together
The memo header addresses the committee. The request section asks for a recommendation to amend the existing tobacco retail license before the next school year and notes that the town already licenses retailers under an ordinance passed four years ago. The local section gives the district vaping rate against state and national figures and notes seven licensed vapor retailers, three near a school. The options section lists no change, a school buffer only, a flavor restriction only, and the recommended combination enforced through existing inspections. The objection section accepts Friedman's finding that youth smoking rose after San Francisco's ban and answers with tobacco-flavored products kept for adults and the new cessation program. Next steps ask for a draft, a hearing within 60 days and tracking.
NR 436 Week 7 rubric: what full points look like
Policy brief rubrics generally score a clear request and audience, evidence of the local problem, fair presentation of options, a justified recommendation, handling of opposing views, professional format, nursing's role and APA. The request and the objection are the rows that set this brief apart: it asks for a specific amendment in its first lines and meets the strongest objection with its evidence acknowledged. Local evidence is credited through survey rates and retailer locations. Options score because doing nothing is included with its cost. The recommendation is justified by enforcement at no new staffing cost. Format earns points for the memo layout and length. Birdsey and colleagues, the CDC's best practices, Friedman and the Surgeon General's report support the brief.
Common NR 436 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A policy brief fails first when it never asks for anything, describing a problem well and leaving the reader with no decision. Another loss is sending the request to someone who cannot make the change. Students also present only the option they prefer, hide the evidence behind the main objection or write in an academic style unsuited to a council. Briefs that run long lose their reader; two to four pages is typical. The recipient can be a realistic composite if your course allows. Nursing's role appears in the evidence and in who will testify. If your priority problem calls for a different policy, describe it and an NR 436 policy brief can be addressed to the right decision-maker.
Get a NR 436 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send us the Week 7 instructions, the rubric and the policy issue your section assigned or approved, and we will write a complete brief to it, with a named decision maker, local evidence, options, a defended recommendation and answers to the likely objections. Back inside 24-48h, and the first example is free.
More NR 436 papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NR 436 Week 1: Community as Patient Discussion Post
- NR 436 Week 2: Windshield Survey Write-Up
- NR 436 Week 3: Community Assessment Vaping Priority
- NR 436 Week 4: Sample Paper, in Real Form
- NR 436 Week 5: Carbon Monoxide Teaching Plan
- NR 436 Week 6: Vaping Cessation Program Proposal
- NR 436 Week 8: Reflection
- NR 439 Week 7: Practice Change Proposal
- NR 395 Week 7: New Graduate Nurse Bullying Analysis
- NR 441 Week 7: Intervention Proposal
- NR 394 Week 7: Measles Vaccine Health Promotion Plan
NR 436 Week 7 questions, answered
How long is a policy brief supposed to be?
Shorter than students expect. Many sections set one to two pages, and the format punishes anything longer because the genre exists to be read quickly by somebody with a full agenda. Headings, short paragraphs and one figure or table do more work than added prose. Where your classroom sets a length, graders treat that length as part of the assignment.
Does the recipient have to be a real official?
Usually the office does, even where the person is identified by role instead of by name. Addressing a county board of health, a district superintendent or a state legislator forces you to match the request to real authority. Naming individuals is often discouraged, so most examples identify the office and its jurisdiction, then argue within that jurisdiction.
How much of the brief is nursing?
More than students think. The evidence is population data you gathered, the framing is a group at risk, and the credibility comes from your standing as the person who saw this neighborhood at street level and then read its rates. What changes is the audience. The argument gets put in terms a decision maker weighs rather than terms a rubric weighs.
Where can I find a free NR 436 Week 7 sample paper?
This page carries the complete Week 7 policy brief to the town council committee, with the request, local data, four options, the recommendation, the objection, next steps and four references.
How does the NR 436 Week 7 brief answer the concern that flavor bans push teens to cigarettes?
It acknowledges Friedman's San Francisco finding, keeps tobacco-flavored products available to adults, pairs the restriction with the school cessation program and asks the district to track smoking on the next survey.