PNP 6013 Module 1 Stakeholder Map and Analysis Example

Who Holds a Stake in Preventing Overdose Deaths? A Stakeholder Map and Analysis for a County Coalition in Central New Mexico

Student Name

American College of Education

PNP6013: Stakeholders and Roles in Public and Nonprofit Organizations

Module 1 Assignment

Instructor Name

October 12, 2026

Introduction

I coordinate an overdose prevention coalition convened by a county health department in central New Mexico. The coalition is a composite drawn from my work and from common features of such groups; names and details are changed. It brings together public agencies, nonprofits, health care providers and community members around one goal: fewer people dying of drug overdose in the county. A coalition like this has no single owner and depends entirely on voluntary participation, which makes understanding its stakeholders essential. This paper identifies the coalition's stakeholders, analyzes their interest, influence and salience and draws implications for how the coalition should engage them.

Identifying Stakeholders

Stakeholders were identified by brainstorming with the coalition's steering group and then checking the list against those affected by, able to affect or holding resources relevant to overdose prevention, an approach consistent with the techniques Bryson (2004) gathered for public and nonprofit settings. Seventeen stakeholders emerged in five groups. Public agencies: the county health department, the county sheriff's office, the city police department, the county detention center, the state health department's harm reduction program and the public school district. Health care: two hospital systems, a federally qualified health center and the ambulance service that covers the county. Nonprofits: a harm reduction organization operating syringe services and naloxone distribution, two treatment providers, a faith-based recovery ministry and a family support group. Community members: people who use drugs, people in recovery and families who have lost someone to overdose.

Power and Interest

Placing each stakeholder on a grid of power over the coalition's goals against interest in them sorts the list into four groups. High power and high interest: the county health department, the harm reduction organization, the hospital systems and the state harm reduction program. These are the coalition's core and must be closely involved. High power but lower interest: the sheriff's office, the city police, the detention center and the school district. They control settings where overdose risk concentrates, such as release from jail, but overdose prevention is one priority among many for them. High interest but lower formal power: people who use drugs, people in recovery, bereaved families and the recovery ministry. Lower on both: some smaller providers. The grid's most important finding is that the people most affected by overdose sit in the corner with the least formal power, and that the agencies controlling the riskiest moments sit in the corner with the least interest.

Salience

A second tool asks why some stakeholders command attention. In the model offered by Mitchell et al. (1997), attention flows to stakeholders according to three things they may hold: sway over the organization, a claim others accept as rightful and a claim that cannot wait. Applied here, the hospital systems hold power and legitimacy but their claims seldom feel urgent to the coalition. Bereaved families hold legitimacy and urgency in abundance, yet little power, which makes them easy to honor at meetings and easy to overlook in decisions. The detention center has power and, given the documented risk of overdose in the weeks after release, an urgent and legitimate stake that it rarely voices. People who use drugs have the most urgent claim of all, but their legitimacy is contested by some members who see them as the problem rather than as partners. The analysis exposes a gap between whose claims are most urgent and whose voices are heard most often.

Interests and Concerns

Stakeholders share the goal of fewer deaths but differ in what else they need. The health department needs data to show progress to the state. The harm reduction organization needs legitimacy and stable funding, and worries that law enforcement partners could deter its participants. Law enforcement agencies want fewer deaths and fewer calls but also answer to residents who oppose syringe services. Hospitals want to reduce repeat emergency visits and meet community benefit obligations. Treatment providers want referrals and wait-list relief. Families want to be heard and want to prevent other losses. People who use drugs want services without judgment or arrest. These interests overlap enough to sustain a coalition and conflict enough to stall it if left unspoken. The school district's interest is quieter but real: staff have found naloxone kits in student lockers, and administrators want guidance on policy without being seen to endorse drug use. EMS crews want fewer repeat calls to the same addresses and better links to follow-up care after they revive someone.

Who Is Missing

Three stakeholders have no regular seat. People who currently use drugs have attended only twice, through the harm reduction organization. Pharmacies, which dispense naloxone and could expand access, have never been invited. And tribal health programs, which serve a substantial share of the county's Native residents, have not been engaged despite rising overdose concern in their communities. Each absence weakens the coalition's knowledge and reach, and the first is also a question of fairness: a coalition about overdose that rarely hears from people at risk of overdose will design strategies based on others' assumptions. Each missing group will be invited before the next quarterly meeting, with a personal contact rather than a mass email.

Relationships Among Stakeholders

Stakeholders also relate to one another, not only to the coalition. The harm reduction organization and the sheriff's office have a strained history: deputies once confiscated naloxone kits during arrests, a practice ended two years ago but still remembered by participants. The two hospital systems compete for patients and are cautious about sharing data with each other. The treatment providers depend on referrals from the hospitals and courts, which gives those referrers informal influence. Families who have lost someone often have close ties to the recovery ministry, which offers grief groups. Mapping these relationships shows where trust must be rebuilt, where competition limits cooperation and where existing ties can be used to reach groups the coalition has struggled to engage.

Implications for Engagement

The analysis suggests different approaches for each group. The high-power, high-interest core should share decisions through the steering group, which matters all the more because the coalition is run by a lead organization, the county health department, rather than shared among members (Provan & Kenis, 2008); members who do not feel ownership may drift away. The high-power, lower-interest agencies need engagement focused on their own concerns, such as presenting jail-release overdose risk to the detention center as a liability and safety issue as well as a health one. The high-interest, low-power community members need structural changes rather than invitations: paid participation, meetings at accessible times and places and a defined role in decisions. And the missing stakeholders need direct outreach, starting with the tribal health programs and pharmacies, whose participation would bring immediate practical gains.

Conclusion

The coalition's seventeen identified stakeholders fall into four groups on a power and interest grid, and a salience analysis shows a gap between whose claims are most urgent and whose voices dominate. Interests overlap enough to sustain collaboration but conflict in ways that need open discussion. Three stakeholders are missing, including the people most at risk. Module 2 examines how the different organizational structures in the coalition shape the roles each stakeholder can play.

References

Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015