PUBH 4200 Week 10 Target Selection Memo Example

Course	PUBH 4200 Public Health Policy for Social Change
Week	Week 10
Paper type	Target selection memo
Length	About 660 words, 4 pages
Format	Memo, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	BS in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 4200 Week 10

Memorandum

To: Coalition for Healthy Kids' Meals, Steering Committee

From: Policy Lead

Date: Month Day, Year

Re: Which decision maker the final case should address

Decision Requested

The coalition must choose one decision maker for its final case before the spring hearing season. Four venues have been proposed: the city council, the state legislature, the county board of health and a voluntary agreement with the state restaurant association. This memo recommends the city council and explains why the other three were set aside.

What this page is doingStating the recommendation in the first paragraph spares steering committee members from reading the whole memo to learn the answer.

How Venue Choice Works

Advocates do not only argue a case; they choose where to argue it. Baumgartner and Jones (1991) showed that issues can move between institutional venues and that a change of venue often changes who participates and which images of the issue dominate. A policy blocked in one venue can succeed in another where the audience and the rules differ. The coalition's question is therefore not only who has authority but where its framing of parents' choice will be heard most favorably.

The Four Venues Compared

Table 1

Venue Comparison

Venue	Authority	Audience the issue meets	Main risk	Time to decision \|
City council	Home-rule ordinance	Local parents, owners, dentists	Committee chair hold	One session \|
State legislature	Statute	Statewide trade associations, lobbyists	Turns into a preemption fight	Two or more sessions \|
County board of health	Food code inspection only	Sanitarians, food safety experts	Lacks authority over nutrition	Not applicable \|
Voluntary agreement	None; contract or pledge	Restaurant association leaders	Unenforceable; uneven uptake	Months \|

Note. Assessments based on the coalition's legal review and prior hearings.

Why Not the State Legislature

A statewide law would reach every restaurant, and Illinois shows it can pass. Yet one year after the Illinois law took effect, fast-food compliance had not changed significantly relative to Wisconsin (Powell et al., 2024), so a state law is no guarantee of results. More important, moving the issue to the statehouse would bring it before the same trade associations that pushed the preemption bill last session. Preemption has become a coordinated multistate strategy (Pomeranz & Pertschuk, 2017). Raising the issue at the state level now could hand opponents the venue they want.

Why Not the County Board of Health

The board inspects under the food code, which covers safety and sanitation. It has no power over menu defaults. A request to the board would be a request it cannot grant, and would waste the coalition's credibility with sanitarians whose help it needs later for enforcement.

Why Not a Voluntary Agreement

Voluntary change is real. A regional restaurant chain that changed its own children's menu defaults kept healthier orders high for more than two years (Anzman-Frasca et al., 2015), and a large theme park operator saw families keep healthier default sides and drinks when it made them standard (Peters et al., 2016). But those were single companies acting on their own decision. A pledge through the restaurant association would have no enforcement and no way to bind the franchisees who did not sign.

What this page is doingGranting the strongest evidence for the rejected option before setting it aside shows the steering committee the choice was weighed, not assumed.

Why the City Council

The council has the authority, has used it for health before, and meets an audience that responds to the parents' choice frame. The decision can be made in one session. The council is also the venue where the coalition already has two sponsors and a likely floor majority. Its main risk, a committee chair hold, is concentrated in one person who can be met with directly.

What the Choice Costs

Choosing the council means the law covers only one city. It also means the coalition must stand ready to defend the ordinance if the state later preempts it. The coalition should therefore keep a state relationships plan in reserve, aimed at preventing preemption rather than passing a state mandate.

Recommendation

Address the final case to the city council, with the Health and Human Services Committee chair as the first audience. Hold the state legislature in reserve as a defensive venue only.

References

Anzman-Frasca, S., Mueller, M. P., Lynskey, V. M., Harelick, L., & Economos, C. D. (2015). Orders of healthier children's items remain high more than two years after menu changes at a regional restaurant chain. Health Affairs, 34(11), 1885-1892. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0651

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044-1074. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131866

Peters, J., Beck, J., Lande, J., Pan, Z., Cardel, M., Ayoob, K., & Hill, J. O. (2016). Using healthy defaults in Walt Disney World restaurants to improve nutritional choices. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1086/684364

Pomeranz, J. L., & Pertschuk, M. (2017). State preemption: A significant and quiet threat to public health in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 107(6), 900-902. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303756

Powell, L. M., Vandenbroeck, A., Leider, J., Pipito, A. A., & Moran, A. (2024). Evaluation of fast-food restaurant kids' meal beverage offerings 1 year after a state-level healthy beverage default policy. AJPM Focus, 3(3), Article 100226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.focus.2024.100226

What the PUBH 4200 Week 10 instructions ask for

Target selection assignments ask students to choose the decision maker their final policy case will address and to justify that choice over alternatives. Instructors expect a comparison of several possible targets, a framework explaining why venue matters and a clear recommendation. Many prompts ask students to name the costs of their choice. Expect two or three pages, one comparison table and at least three sources. Persuasive memos give the rejected options a fair hearing before setting them aside. Some sections ask students to consider timing as well as venue, such as which body meets soonest or which faces an election. Instructors also value memos that explain how the chosen venue changes who participates in the debate.

How the PUBH 4200 Week 10 example is put together

The memo states the decision requested and the recommendation up front. A section introduces venue choice theory. A table compares four venues on authority, audience, risk and time. Three sections explain why the legislature, the county board and a voluntary agreement were set aside, citing evidence on state law results, preemption and voluntary menu changes. A section explains why the council fits, another names the costs of the choice, and a final recommendation identifies the first audience. The memo explains that taking the issue to the statehouse could hand opponents the venue they prefer, given a recent preemption bill. It also recommends keeping a plan for the legislature in reserve, aimed at preventing preemption rather than passing a state mandate.

PUBH 4200 Week 10 rubric: what earns full marks

Target memos are judged on the range of alternatives considered, use of theory, fairness to rejected options and clarity of the recommendation. Range credit requires at least three plausible targets. Theory credit comes from applying a framework on venues or agenda setting. Fairness credit rewards stating the best case for alternatives. Recommendation credit requires naming one body and its first audience, with the costs acknowledged. Memos that explain how the choice of venue changes which arguments dominate show the strongest use of theory. Strong memos also say what would make the coalition reconsider its choice.

PUBH 4200 Week 10 help from the desk

Target memos often pick a body without comparing it to others. List every body that could plausibly act, including non-governmental options. Compare them on authority, audience, risk and time. Give each rejected option its strongest argument before explaining why you set it aside. Name the costs of your choice. Recommend one body and the first person to approach. A free target selection memo for your campaign can be requested. Ask, for each venue, who would show up to testify and what they would say. The venue where your strongest messengers have the most standing is often the best choice, even if another body has broader authority. Write the rejected options' best case in a sentence each before you answer them; a steering committee will trust a recommendation more when it can see the alternatives were weighed.

Get a PUBH 4200 Week 10 example written to your instructions

Include the Week 10 prompt and rubric and the candidate bodies you are choosing between, if your section named them. A PUBH 4200 target selection memo weighs each candidate on stated criteria and is ready within 24 to 48 hours; your first request is free. No real city or county sits behind the three boards compared.

More PUBH 4200 papers and BS in Public Health samples

PUBH 4200 Week 10 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 4200 Week 10 sample paper?

The full Week 10 target selection memo is shown above, comparing four venues for a kids' meal default beverage requirement and recommending a city council.

What is venue shopping?

Moving an issue to the institution where its framing and supporters are most likely to prevail.

Why not ask the state legislature for a statewide law?

Doing so would place the issue before the trade groups that sought preemption, and state laws have not guaranteed compliance.

Why not rely on a voluntary restaurant pledge?

A pledge has no enforcement and cannot bind franchisees who do not sign.

What does choosing the council cost?

The rule covers only one city, and the coalition must be ready to defend it if the state later preempts local action.