| Course | PHLT 8040 Advanced Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Coalition memo |
| Length | About 810 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8040 Week 9
Memorandum
To: Joint Steering Group, Lakes and Wells Coalition and County Health Officers Association
From: Policy Committee Member (DrPH student)
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Recommended terms for four prospective allies before the committee vote on the septic inspection bill
Summary and Recommendation
The bill has four committee votes in favor and needs six. Four organizations have offered support in exchange for changes. I recommend that we accept the installers association's request for a licensing standard and the community bankers' request for a fund-backed rate buydown, accept one of the realtors' three requests, and decline the farm bureau's request for an exemption. Doing so would bring the two swing votes most within reach while keeping the bill's core: inspection at transfer for nearly all older systems and repair financing for those least able to pay. Each ally is assessed below in the same four parts: what it brings to the committee vote, what it asks, what the concession would cost the bill and a verdict.
Why Not Accept Every Ally
It is tempting to welcome every organization that offers support. Riker (1962) argued that rational coalition builders seek the smallest coalition that can win, because every additional member must be paid with concessions that reduce what the winners keep. A bill that absorbs every ally's terms can pass and still fail to do what it was written to do. The question for each prospective ally is therefore not whether its support helps, but whether the votes it brings are worth what its terms would cost.
Septic Installers and Pumpers Association
What it brings. Members in every rural district, including both swing senators', and technical credibility: committee members trust installers on what inspections involve.
What it asks. That only licensed inspectors who have completed a state training course conduct transfer inspections, and that the state inspection form be standardized.
Cost to the bill. Modest. Licensing slows the start of inspections slightly and may raise fees in counties with few licensed inspectors, but the bill already requires licensing under Section 4, so the request mostly strengthens existing language.
Verdict. Accept. The terms improve the bill's quality, and the association's testimony would answer the realtors' claim that inspections are unreliable.
Community Bankers Association
What it brings. Credibility with the finance authority and with fiscally cautious senators, and the lenders who would actually originate repair loans.
What it asks. That the revolving fund buy down interest rates on bank-originated loans and guarantee a share of losses on loans to lower-income owners.
Cost to the bill. Moderate. A loss guarantee draws on the fund, but it replaces the need for the state to build its own loan servicing, which would cost more. A guarantee is a contingent liability whose expected cost depends on how often loans default, not on its face value (Weimer & Vining, 2017).
Verdict. Accept the rate buydown and a capped guarantee. This structure has been used for septic lending elsewhere and answers the finance authority's concern about household loans.
State Realtors Association
What it brings. The largest single shift available: the association's neutrality would likely move one swing senator who has said she will not vote against the realtors.
What it asks. Three things: inspections valid for three years rather than one, an exemption for transfers between family members, and a repair deadline of 24 months rather than 12.
Cost to the bill. Mixed. A three-year validity period has little effect on health, since few systems fail within that time after passing. A family-transfer exemption would remove many older lakeshore cabins, exactly the systems most likely to be failing near water. A 24-month deadline would double the time a known failure continues to discharge.
Verdict. Accept the three-year validity period; decline the family exemption and the longer deadline. Offer the existing escrow provision as the answer to the association's concern about delayed sales.
State Farm Bureau
What it brings. Influence with rural senators, including one swing vote.
What it asks. An exemption for any home on an agricultural parcel.
Cost to the bill. High. Farmhouses are often older, served by private wells and sited near livestock and fields where nitrate is already a concern, so an exemption would remove systems with high potential for harm to drinking water.
Verdict. Decline, while offering to work with the bureau on repair loan outreach to farm households, which addresses its members' real concern about cost.
What the Coalition Gains and Gives Up
If the recommended terms are accepted, the coalition gains the installers, the bankers and the realtors' neutrality, which together likely deliver the two swing votes. It gives up a shorter inspection validity period and accepts a capped draw on the fund for loan guarantees. It keeps inspection at transfer for family transfers and farmhouses, the 12-month repair deadline and income-based forgiveness. Kingdon (2011) notes that policy windows open briefly; securing a bill that keeps its core this session is worth more than holding out for one that satisfies everyone later.
References
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman.
Riker, W. H. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. Yale University Press.
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (6th ed.). Routledge.
What the PHLT 8040 Week 9 instructions ask for
The ninth assignment usually asks for a memo to a coalition's leadership recommending which allies to recruit and on what terms. Faculty expect a summary with the recommendation and the vote count up front, then a consistent assessment of each prospective ally: what it brings, what it asks, what the concession would cost the policy and a verdict. A theory of coalition size, such as Riker's minimum winning coalition, helps explain why declining support can be wise. Concessions can be valued without dollar figures by describing what the policy would lose in reach, speed, protection or money. Reasons should accompany every refusal so the leadership can judge whether the price was worth it. A closing section on what the coalition gains and gives up ties the recommendations together.
How this PHLT 8040 Week 9 example is built
A summary paragraph states the vote count, the four recommendations and the bill's core that they protect. A section explains Riker's argument that coalitions should be only as large as needed. Four ally sections follow in identical form. The installers bring rural members and credibility and ask for licensing that the bill largely contains, so the verdict is accept. The bankers bring fiscal credibility and lenders, asking for a buydown and guarantee, which the memo values as a contingent liability, and accepts with a cap. The realtors could move a swing vote; the memo accepts longer inspection validity but declines exemptions that would remove older lakeshore cabins. The farm bureau's exemption would remove high-risk farmhouses, so it is declined with an offer of outreach help. A final section weighs gains against concessions.
Reading the PHLT 8040 Week 9 rubric
Graders reward a recommendation that follows from consistent assessments. Memos that welcome every ally, or decline one without reasons, lose the analytic credit. The four-part structure applied to each ally makes comparison possible, and concessions valued in terms of what the bill would lose are preferred to invented costs. Credit goes to applying coalition theory to explain a refusal, the least intuitive recommendation and the one leadership will question first. Accuracy about the policy's mechanics, such as why a family exemption matters for lakeshore cabins, is checked. A summary that leads with the recommendation, and a closing section that states what the coalition keeps and gives up, show professional judgment. Memo form and concise writing for a steering group are part of the grade.
PHLT 8040 Week 9 help from the desk
Coalition memos falter when they treat every offer of support as good news. Count the votes you need, then assess each prospective ally the same way: what it brings, what it wants, what that would cost the policy and whether the trade is worth it. Value concessions by what the policy would lose. Give reasons for every refusal, and offer declined allies another way to help. Lead with the recommendation and end with what the coalition keeps. Other campaigns' ally decisions can be worked through in the same four parts.
Get a PHLT 8040 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 9 prompt and rubric along with the bill or proposal your coalition is backing, and name the allies your section asked you to weigh. A PHLT 8040 coalition memo comes back with each ally priced in 24 to 48 hours, a first request free. None of the four prospective allies is a real organization, and the coalition itself is invented.
More PHLT 8040 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8040 Week 1: Septic Jurisdiction Post
- PHLT 8040 Week 2: Septic Systems Issue Brief
- PHLT 8040 Week 3: Septic Policy Stakeholder Map
- PHLT 8040 Week 4: Septic Bill Policy Brief
- PHLT 8040 Week 5: Tools of Government Peer Replies
- PHLT 8040 Week 6: Septic Bill Clause Analysis
- PHLT 8040 Week 7: Septic Bill Testimony
- PHLT 8040 Week 8: Repair Lending Advocacy Letter
- PHLT 8040 Week 10: Septic Bill Op-Ed
- PHLT 8040 Week 11: Septic Policy Proposal
- PHLT 8042 Week 9: Care Home Visiting Limits Memo
- PHLT 8034 Week 9: Bottling Line Noise Control Brief
- PHLT 8032 Week 9: APA Results Tables
- PHLT 8006 Week 9: Dissertation Topic Memo
PHLT 8040 Week 9 questions, answered
What is Riker's size principle?
William Riker argued that where winners divide the gains, rational actors form coalitions only as large as needed to win, because each extra member takes a share. The example adapts the idea: past the committee votes needed, each added ally costs a concession without adding strength. It explains why the memo declines support, which is the least intuitive move a coalition can make and the one your steering group will question first.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8040 Week 9 sample paper?
This page reproduces the complete Week 9 coalition memo, assessing four prospective allies for a septic inspection bill and recommending which concessions to accept and which to decline.
Is it wise to turn down an ally?
Sometimes it protects the bill. This sample declines the farm bureau because exempting farmhouses would remove systems with high potential to contaminate wells, and it offers outreach help instead of hostility.
How are concessions valued without dollar figures?
By describing what the bill would lose. A family-transfer exemption removes older lakeshore cabins from inspection, and a longer deadline doubles the time a known failure keeps discharging.
Why accept the realtors' three-year validity request?
Few systems fail within three years after passing an inspection, so the change costs little in health protection while removing one of the realtors' practical objections and helping secure a swing vote.