Vital Strategies and Christine Minhee of reviewed publicly available legal and policy documents related to each state’s allocation and management of opioid settlement funds.[1] We supplemented information from these primary sources with published secondary sources (e.g., press releases, news articles, government or other official settlement-related websites, committee meeting materials). All information was cross-checked with the original state-level guides for community advocates published in 2023.
Factchecking with state officials: Christine and Vital Strategies also reached out to all known opioid settlement-related leads and contacts for each state (e.g., state attorney general offices, departments of health). Each state was given an opportunity to respond to a draft of its summary table. We received responses from 29/51 jurisdictions. The published guides reflect changes and additions resulting from this collaborative process. The guides also note the limited instances in which we disagreed with a state’s characterization.
[1] This includes, but is not limited to: (1) codified statutes and administrative rules/regulations; (2) state-subdivision agreements (e.g., state memoranda of understanding/agreement); (3) settlement-related agreements among local governments; (4) governing documents for settlement advisory bodies, foundations, trusts, and similar entities (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws); (5) official policies adopted by settlement advisory bodies, foundations, trusts, and similar entities; (6) executed judgements and other court orders; (7) settlement-funded grant agreements; and (8) official guidance documents.
Parameter Descriptions and Rules
Please note: The parameters described below refer to intrastate “share(s).” With limited exceptions, each state has chosen to allocate its opioid settlement funds across varied intrastate “shares” (e.g., “state share,” “local share,” “Foundation share”), with each typically attached to varying requirements.
Ultimate Decisionmaker(s)
The entity (or entities) that make(s) the final decision on expenditures from a share.
Summary table (“Ultimate Decisionmaker(s)”)
Each share page (“Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?”)
This parameter focuses on substantive decision-making on how to allocate funds from the share. Ultimate decisionmaker(s) do not include entities whose actions are merely ministerial or procedural.
Decision-making Process
The process for deciding expenditures from a share.
Summary table (“Decision-making Process”)
Each share page (“Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?”)
An entity is described as deciding autonomously if it may spend funds from the share without the need for another entity to first take some specified action (e.g., approve a spending plan or certification of capability). Actions required after spending occurs (e.g., expenditure reporting) do not affect this description.
Supplantation
How supplantation — the use of opioid settlement funds to replace rather than supplement existing resources — is addressed for a share.
Summary table (“Supplantation”)
Each share page (“Are supplantation uses prohibited for this share?”)
Not prohibited: No explicit prohibition on supplantation uses of funds applies to the share.
Discouraged but not prohibited: A publicly accessible law, policy, agreement, or official guidance document discourages — but does not prohibit — supplantation uses of the share.
Generally, not prohibited: Provisions not specifically intended to prohibit supplantation — but which have the substantive effect of limiting some, but not most, forms of supplantation — apply to the share.
Partially prohibited: Supplantation uses of funds are prohibited for some, but not all, of the share.
Prohibited: An explicit prohibition on supplantation uses of funds applies to the share.
Unclear: Ambiguous or conflicting information exists as to whether supplantation uses of the share are discouraged and/or prohibited, and a state did not respond to requests for clarification.
Grant Funding
Summary table (“Grant Funding”)
Community Access (“Can I apply for grants?”)
Summary table
Yes: At least one publicized grant opportunity for which community organizations are/were eligible is/was supported by funds from the share.
No: No identified current and/or past grant opportunities (1) that are/were funded by the share; AND (2) for which community organizations are/were eligible.
Up to each [locality/other entity] (availability and processes will vary): Local governments (or other specified entity) may use funds from the share to establish grant opportunities for which community organizations are eligible.
Yes: As of September 1, 2024, the state has established at least one opioid settlement-funded grant opportunity for which community organizations are eligible.
It depends: Both of the following conditions are met:
As of September 1, 2024, the state has not established any opioid settlement-funded grant opportunities for which community organizations are eligible.
Local governments may, but are not required to, establish opioid settlement-funded grant opportunities for which community organizations are eligible.
No: Both of the following conditions are met:
As of September 1, 2024, the state has not established any opioid settlement-funded grant opportunities for which community organizations are eligible.
Local governments are prohibited from establishing opioid settlement-funded grant opportunities for which community organizations are eligible.
Whether opportunities for public input on spending exist for a share and whether such opportunities are required. The Community Access page also includes information about specific opportunities to provide public input on a share.
Summary table (“Public Input”)
Community Access (“Can I provide input on spending?”)
Yes: Recurring opportunities for public input exist for the share.
Generally, yes: Decisionmakers for the share are subject to open meetings laws that ensure the right to public comment but are not required to solicit public input as to opioid settlements specifically.
Note: Public input is coded as “Yes (required)” rather than “Generally, yes” when a state entity specifically focused on opioid settlement funds (e.g., a state opioid settlement advisory committee) is explicitly subject to an open meetings law that ensures the right to public comment.
Depends on future programming: Decisionmakers for the share have not established recurring opportunities for public input but have provided such opportunities in the past.
Not…yet?: Decisionmakers for the share are required to provide an opportunity for public input but have yet to do so.
No opportunities available: No recurring opportunities for public input on uses exist for the share and decisionmakers for the share have not previously provided opportunities for public input.
Up to each [locality/region/other entity]: Local decisionmakers are neither subject to open meetings laws ensuring the right to public comment nor required to solicit public input as to opioid settlements specifically but may voluntarily seek such input.
Advisory Body
Whether an advisory body has been established to advise or decide opioid settlement spending from a share, whether the existence of this body is required, and whether the body is required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience. The Advisory Bodies sub-page also includes information about the responsibilities and overall membership of advisory bodies.
Summary table (“Advisory Body”)
Summary Table
Yes: An advisory body has been established to advise on or decide opioid settlement spending from the share.
No: No advisory body exists to advise on or decide opioid settlement spending from the share.
Up to each [locality/region/other entity]: Local decisionmakers are not required to establish an advisory body to advise or decide opioid settlement spend but may voluntarily choose to do so
Advisory Bodies Page
Is the state advisory body required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience?
Yes: The state advisory body’s membership criteria, as established via a binding policy (e.g., state law, state-subdivision agreement, bylaws), cannot be satisfied without the inclusion of at least one person with lived and/or living experience.
Not necessarily: The state advisory body’s membership criteria, as established via a binding policy (e.g., state law, state-subdivision agreement, bylaws), directly addresses lived and/or living experience but the criteria may be satisfied without the inclusion of such experience.
No: No binding policy regarding the state advisory body’s membership criteria directly addresses lived and/or living experience or requires the inclusion of a person with such experience, regardless of whether the state advisory body’s current membership includes one or more individuals with lived and/or living experience.
Are local governments required to establish a settlement advisory body? If so, are local advisory bodies required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience?
Yes: A state law and/or state-subdivision agreement requires local governments receiving opioid settlement funds to establish an advisory body to advise or decide on settlement spending.
Yes, but regional only: A state law and/or state-subdivision agreement requires the establishment of regional advisory bodies to advise, decide, and/or provide oversight on opioid settlement spending from one or more shares. Individual local governments are not required to establish their own advisory body but may voluntarily choose to do so.
No (up to each locality): Local governments are not required to establish an advisory body to advise on or decide opioid settlement spending but may voluntarily choose to do so.
Expenditures
Whether expenditures for a share are publicly available, whether the share is subject to public or intrastate expenditure reporting requirement(s), and links to available expenditure data (if any).
Summary table (“Expenditures”)
Each share page (“Can I see how this share has been spent?”)
Summary table
Public reporting required: A binding policy (e.g., state law, state-subdivision agreement) requires expenditure data for the share to be published in a publicly accessible location.
No public reporting required (only intrastate): A binding policy (e.g., state law, state-subdivision agreement) requires one entity (e.g., a local government) to report settlement expenditures from the share to another entity (e.g., a state government agency) but there is no requirement that these expenditures be published in a publicly accessible location.
Neither public nor intrastate reporting required: Expenditures from the share are not required to be reported to another entity or published in a publicly accessible location.
Can I see how this share has been spent? (Each share page)
Yes: A publicly available source exists with expenditures from the share, regardless of format or granularity.
No: For the share, there is no identified publicly available source to view expenditures, no binding policy requiring public reporting of expenditures, and no official statements speaking to a commitment to publicly report expenditures.
Eventually: A binding policy (e.g., state law, state-subdivision agreement) requires public reporting of expenditures from the share but these expenditure data are not yet available.
Not…yet?: Official statements speak to a commitment to publicly report expenditures from the share but these expenditure data are not yet available and no binding policy (e.g., state law, state-subdivision agreement) requires such reporting.
Up to each locality: No binding policy (e.g., state law, state-subdivision agreement) requires local governments to publicly report expenditure data but localities may voluntarily choose to do so.
Updates
Where a member of the public can find opioid settlement-related updates for each share.
Summary table (“Updates”)
Community Access (“Where do I go for updates?”)
What else should I know?
Additional information related to the topic of a sub-page that does not fit within the standard parameters.
Each share page (“What else should I know?”)
