Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Opioid settlement funds provide a critical opportunity for enhanced investment in strategies to counter a national overdose crisis. Community participation – especially by those disproportionately affected by the overdose crisis and War on Drugs – can help promote spending that is more equitable and more responsive to communities who need it most.
Christine Minhee of OpioidSettlementTracker.com and the Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program have partnered to provide a comprehensive update and expansion of the opioid settlement guides for all 50 states and the District of Columbia initially released in Summer 2023.
The opioid settlement guides on this website will demystify how each state will receive and allocate opioid settlement funds. The goal is to empower on-the-ground community advocates so that they may effectively understand and engage with their states’ and localities’ opioid settlement planning and spending processes.
We hope these guides will serve as a critical resource to community members, in addition to journalists, policymakers, and the public at large.
Each state-specific guide answers the following questions for each intrastate share:
Where exactly do my state’s opioid settlement monies live?
Who ultimately decides how my state’s opioid settlement funds are spent (e.g., advisory council members, state legislatures, health departments, local government officials)?
What may my state’s opioid settlements be spent on, and what processes must be followed as they are spent?
Has my state established an opioid settlement advisory body? And is that body required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience?
Can I provide input on spending? Are my state’s decisionmakers required to hear the public’s input on opioid settlement spend?
Are any of my state’s opioid settlements at risk of being used to supplant existing health resources?
Where should I go for updates, and what are key opioid settlement spending resources I should know about in my state?
Click on a state below or select a state in the drop-down menu at the top of the page to access its comprehensive guide on opioid settlement funds:
Development of the Opioid Settlement Funds: State-Level Guides for Community Advocates was led by OpioidSettlementTracker.com (Christine Minhee, founder) and the Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program (Kate Boulton, senior legal technical advisor, and Derek Carr, legal technical advisor). Christine Minhee, Kate Boulton, and Derek Carr were also responsible for researching and writing each guide.
OpioidSettlementTracker.com and Vital Strategies also wish to acknowledge the enormous contribution of Ari Edelman McHenry to the creation of the original state-level guides for community advocates published in Summer 2023.
The state guides are a living resource that we will periodically adjust as new information becomes available. These discrete modifications do not reflect a comprehensive update of a guide's contents. The "Last revised [date]" at the top of each state guide's summary landing page indicates when the state guide last received a comprehensive update. The gray "Last updated [time frame]" text at the bottom of each page indicates when we last made a discrete adjustment to that specific page.
The volume and constantly changing nature of information in the state guides makes broken/outdated links and typographical/formatting errors more likely. We encourage you to use the Contact Us form to report any issues or alert us to important changes in a state's opioid settlement landscape.
Click on a state below or select a state in the drop-down menu at the top of the page to access its comprehensive guide on opioid settlement funds:
The state guides are a living resource that we will periodically adjust as new information becomes available. These discrete modifications do not reflect a comprehensive update of a guide's contents. The "Last revised [date]" at the top of each state guide's summary landing page indicates when the state guide last received a comprehensive update. The gray "Last updated [time frame]" text at the bottom of each page indicates when we last made a discrete adjustment to that specific page.
The volume and constantly changing nature of information in the state guides makes broken/outdated links and typographical/formatting errors more likely. We encourage you to use the to report any issues or alert us to important changes in a state's opioid settlement landscape.
Legal Action Center
Center for Popular Democracy
Vital Strategies and Christine Minhee of OpioidSettlementTracker.com 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.
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.
The entity (or entities) that make(s) the final decision on expenditures from a share.
Summary table (“Ultimate Decisionmaker(s)”)
Decision-Making page
Each share page (“Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?”)
The process for deciding expenditures from a share.
Summary table (“Decision-making Process”)
Decision-Making page
Each share page (“Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?”)
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?”)
For summary table: Whether any grant opportunities exist(ed): (1) that are funded by the share; AND (2) for which community organizations are eligible. Includes links to settlement-specific grant portals and/or OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s .
For Community Access page: Whether the state and/or local governments in a state have established opioid settlement-funded grant opportunities for which community organizations are eligible. Includes links to any opioid settlement-specific grant portals and OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s .
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?”)
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”)
Advisory Bodies
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).
Reporting for this parameter originally derives from OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s independently produced . Vital Strategies and Christine Minhee verified and updated the public and intrastate reporting requirements for each state and share.
Summary table (“Expenditures”)
Each share page (“Can I see how this share has been spent?”)
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?”)
Not applicable.
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?”)
Community Access
Advisory Bodies
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.
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.
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.
Community Access (“Can I apply for grants?”)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 applicable.
Each of the answer choices above may be followed by the parenthetical “(required)” or “(not required)” indicating whether there is a legally binding requirement to seek public input for the share.
Each of the answer choices above may be followed by the parenthetical “(required)” or “(not required)” indicating whether there is a legally binding requirement to establish an advisory body to advise or decide opioid settlement spending from the share.
Definition of Lived/Living Experience: We recognize the critical perspective of the families and friends of individuals affected by the overdose crisis. For the purposes of these guides, we defined a member with lived and/or living experience as an individual who themselves use(d) drugs, has/had a substance use disorder, or experienced an overdose. We have separately noted when family members of such individuals may satisfy a membership requirement.
The categorization rules on whether local advisory bodies are required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience mirror those applicable to state advisory bodies. See “Is the state advisory body required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience?” above.
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.
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.
Note: This parameter is limited to reporting requirements specific to opioid settlement funds and does not address state laws establishing generally applicable requirements for reporting expenditures of public funds.
The ability to request settlement expenditure data for a share via a generally applicable public records law does not qualify as required public reporting.
We consider a share subject to a public reporting requirement if (1) the share is subject to a settlement-specific intrastate reporting requirement; AND (2) the provision establishing the intrastate reporting requirement specifically references a generally applicable law that requires such reports be published in a publicly accessible location.
Parentheticals: Each of the answer choices above are followed by “(public reporting required),” “(public reporting not required, only intrastate),” or “(neither public nor intrastate reporting required).” The categorization rules for these parentheticals are the same as those for the summary table.