PUBH 4100 Week 6 Stakeholder Map Example

Course	PUBH 4100 Evaluating Public Health Programs
Week	Week 6
Paper type	Stakeholder map
Length	About 520 words, 4 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	BS in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 4100 Week 6

Who Is Waiting for the Answer? A Stakeholder Map for the Swim Lesson Voucher Evaluation, Linking Each Reader to a Decision, a Date and the Evidence That Would Persuade Them

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 4100: Evaluating Public Health Programs

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title frames stakeholders by the decisions they face, because an evaluation nobody can act on fails no matter how good its data.

Who Is Waiting for the Answer? A Stakeholder Map for the Swim Lesson Voucher Evaluation, Linking Each Reader to a Decision, a Date and the Evidence That Would Persuade Them

Purpose

An evaluation has an audience problem when its findings arrive after decisions are made or in a form no decision maker can use. This map lists the people waiting for the swim lesson voucher evaluation, the decision each faces, when it must be made and what kind of evidence each would find persuasive. Naming the people who will use findings, and what they need, comes early in common evaluation frameworks (Milstein & Wetterhall, 2000).

What this page is doingDefining the purpose as matching findings to decisions makes the map a planning tool rather than a list of names.

The Map

Table 1

Stakeholders, Decisions and Timing (Composite)

Stakeholder	Decision they face	When	Evidence they find persuasive \|
County Parks and Recreation director	Whether to renew pool time and instructor contracts	Budget request due in September	Pass rate against the 70% standard; cost per child \|
County board of commissioners	Whether to fund the program next year	Budget vote in November	A single clear verdict; numbers of local children served \|
Health officer	Whether to extend vouchers to more families	Strategic plan in October	Reach among eligible families; equity of who enrolled \|
Pool managers	How to schedule and staff sessions	Spring planning	Class size, attendance and cancellations by pool \|
WIC and food assistance offices	Whether to keep distributing vouchers	Ongoing	How many vouchers given out were used \|
Parents	Whether to enroll their children again	Registration in May	Plain-language results; what children could do by the end \|

Note. Composite stakeholders and dates for the program evaluated this term.

What the Map Changes

Timing

The parks director's budget request is due in September, before the full report would normally be finished. The evaluation will therefore produce a two-page interim summary of the pass rate and delivery figures by the end of August, with the full report following in October.

Form

The board wants one verdict and local numbers. The health officer wants equity data, which requires breaking reach down by neighborhood, a step not in the original plan and now added. Parents need a short notice in plain language, translated into the two most common languages among enrolled families.

Evidence Types

The parks director is persuaded by performance against an agreed standard; the health officer by reach and equity; parents by what children could actually do. A single report cannot lead with all three, so the full report will open with the verdict and include short sections written for each audience.

Stakeholders Not Waiting but Affected

Families who were eligible but never used a voucher, about 87% of eligible children, are not waiting for results, but their absence is the program's largest gap. The evaluation cannot interview them this year; the report will recommend a short survey through WIC offices next year. Delivery data suggest that reach, not lesson quality, may be the bigger limit on the program's benefit; process evaluation guides treat reach as a core implementation measure for this reason (Saunders et al., 2005). It matters especially because evidence links formal lessons to lower drowning risk only for children who take them (Brenner et al., 2009).

References

Brenner, R. A., Taneja, G. S., Haynie, D. L., Trumble, A. C., Qian, C., Klinger, R. M., & Klebanoff, M. A. (2009). Association between swimming lessons and drowning in childhood: A case-control study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(3), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.563

Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S. (2000). A framework featuring steps and standards for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 1(3), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/152483990000100304

Saunders, R. P., Evans, M. H., & Joshi, P. (2005). Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: A how-to guide. Health Promotion Practice, 6(2), 134-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839904273387

PUBH 4100 Week 6 instructions, in plain terms

Stakeholder mapping assignments ask students to identify who will use an evaluation's findings and how. Instructors look for each stakeholder's decision, its timing and the kind of evidence that would persuade them, not simply a list of interested parties. Prompts often want to know how the map reshapes the evaluation's timeline, products or analyses. A brief with a stakeholder table is common. Students should cite evaluation frameworks that put engagement of intended users first and should consider groups affected by the program who are not actively waiting for results. Some prompts ask for a visual map; a table with decisions and dates often communicates more clearly. Students should also note any stakeholder whose decision comes before the evaluation can finish.

How the PUBH 4100 Week 6 example is put together

The brief defines its purpose as matching findings to decisions, citing an evaluation framework. Table 1 lists six stakeholders with their decision, timing and persuasive evidence. A section explains three changes the map caused: timing, through an interim summary; form, through different products for the board, the health officer and parents; and evidence types, through a report organized around a verdict with sections for each audience. A closing section names families who never used vouchers and recommends a survey, citing guidance on reach. Each change the map caused is tied to a named stakeholder, so a reader can see why the evaluation's products differ from a single report.

PUBH 4100 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks

Stakeholder maps are graded on specificity, timing, effect on the evaluation and inclusion. Specificity credit comes from naming the decision each stakeholder faces. Timing credit comes from dates tied to budget and planning cycles. Effect credit, often the deciding factor, comes from showing how the map changed the evaluation's products and analyses. Inclusion credit comes from naming those affected but not waiting, the eligible families who never enrolled. Format and citations complete the scoring. Maps that list stakeholders with generic "interest" labels and no decisions usually earn partial credit. Adding an equity breakdown at the health officer's request shows how stakeholder needs can change the analysis itself.

Common PUBH 4100 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Stakeholder maps are useful only if they change the evaluation. For each stakeholder, write the decision they face and its date. Ask what evidence would persuade them. Then adjust: produce an interim summary if a decision comes early, add analyses a stakeholder needs and plan products in the forms each will read. Include people affected by the program who are not asking for results. Keep the table concise. Ask us for a first stakeholder map for your evaluation, free. Check that every product you promise has a delivery date before the decision it serves. Revisit the map midway through the evaluation, since decision dates can move.

Get a PUBH 4100 Week 6 example written to your instructions

Bring the Week 6 prompt and rubric the classroom published; a map of the same kind is back inside 24-48h and nothing is charged for the first one. Naming the setting a section assigned shapes the rows. Real names, internal reporting lines and an employer's governance material stay out of the sample entirely.

More PUBH 4100 papers and BS in Public Health samples

PUBH 4100 Week 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 4100 Week 6 sample paper?

The full Week 6 stakeholder map is published above, linking six readers of a swim lesson evaluation to decisions, dates and persuasive evidence.

What is a stakeholder map in program evaluation?

A list of the people and groups who will use or be affected by an evaluation, with the decisions they face, their timing and the evidence they need.

How can a stakeholder map change an evaluation?

It can lead to interim reports before key decisions, extra analyses such as equity breakdowns and different products for different readers.

Why include people who are not waiting for results?

Groups such as eligible families who never enrolled are affected by the program, and their absence may be its largest gap.

When should evaluation results be delivered?

Before the decisions they are meant to inform, which may require an interim summary ahead of the full report.