Here are the entities that ultimately decide how each of South Dakota’s opioid settlement shares are spent:

• 70% state share: South Dakota Department of Social Services

• 30% local share: local officials for cities and counties

Can I provide input on spending?

• 70% state share: Yes (required). The South Dakota Opioid Advisory Committee, which is required to establish a process for receiving input from South Dakota’s “communities, provider organizations, and cities and counties,”[1] includes a dedicated public comment period at the end of its meetings.[2] Visit the Advisory Committee’s website to find meeting dates and agendas. The Advisory Committee must meet at least twice annually and make formal spending recommendations at least once annually.[3]

• 30% local share: Generally, yes. Though local governments are not required to seek public input as to settlement spending specifically, South Dakota’s Open Meetings Laws require local governments to accept public comments during their public meetings.[4] Take advantage of this requirement by showing up to meetings of your local governing body and offering comments on local settlement spending.

Can I apply for grants?

Yes. Visit this website to learn more about the Opioid Settlement Fund Community Grant Program.[5] Local governments may create grant programs to distribute their share of funds. The existence, parameters, and processes for local settlement grant programs will vary by locality, so stay alert for new opportunities. Visit the Opioid Settlement Community Grants Portal (OpioidSettlementTracker.com and Legal Action Center) for the most up-to-date information on settlement grant opportunities for community organization.

Where do I go for updates?

• For updates on the state share, visit the South Dakota Opioid Advisory Committee’s website. See also Department of Health’s Prescription Opioid Abuse Prevention Initiative.

• To find updates on the local share, a good starting point is to check the websites for your board of county commissioners, city council, or local health department. The South Dakota Department of Social Services maintains a list of local contacts, and you can also review the state’s annual reports on opioid funding (the 2023 report includes the amount of settlement funds distributed to local governments, and the 2024 report will include information on their “[p]rograms, strategies, and projects funded”).[6]

What else should I know?

Not applicable.

Citations

1. The Advisory Committee is required to “establish a process for receiving input from South Dakota’s communities, provider organizations, and cities and counties regarding how the opioid crisis is affecting their communities, understanding their abatement needs, and considering proposals for opioid abatement strategies and responses.” South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement Sec. IX(C). ↑

2. See, e.g., Meeting Agenda. South Dakota Opioid Abuse Advisory Committee. August 29, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

3. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement Sec. IX(C); Bylaws of the South Dakota Opioid Abuse Advisory Committee Art. IV. ↑

4. S.D. Codified Laws Sec. 1-25-1 (“The public body shall reserve at every official meeting a period for public comment, limited at the public body’s discretion as to the time allowed for each topic and the total time allowed for public comment, but not so limited as to provide for no public comment”) and Sec. 1-25-12(1) (defining “political subdivision”), (2) (defining “public body” to mean “any political subdivision and the state”). ↑

5. Behavioral Health Funding Opportunities and Grant Information. South Dakota Department of Social Services. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

6. Appendix C: 2022 Report of Participating Local Governments. Federal Opioid Funding State of South Dakota Annual Report 2023. South Dakota Department of Health and Department of Social Services. ↑

South Dakota Department of Health

• Prescription Opioid Abuse Prevention Initiative

• AvoidOpioidSD.com

South Dakota Department of Social Services

• Behavioral Health Funding Opportunities and Grant Information

• FAQs on Opioid Settlement Fund Community Grant Program

• Local Government Points of Contact

• Opioid Settlement Update

• 2023-2024 Opioid Settlement Fund Community Grant Program Award Summary

South Dakota Department of Health and Department of Social Services

• 2023 Federal Opioid Funding State of South Dakota Annual Report

Where do these monies live?

The Opioid Abatement and Remediation Fund holds South Dakota’s state share of opioid settlement funds.[1]

What can this share be spent on?

This share must be spent “exclusively to abate and alleviate the opioid crisis,”[2] and attorneys’ fees and reimbursement uses are explicitly prohibited for this share.[3] South Dakota defines “Approved Use(s)” as uses that “fall within” or are “otherwise consistent with” of its MOA.[4]

of South Dakota’s MOA largely mirrors the national settlement agreement’s Exhibit E, ,[5] which includes treatment, prevention, harm reduction, and other strategies.

Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?

Opioid Advisory Committee recommends, Department of Social Services decides. The South Dakota (DSS) ultimately decides specific expenditures for this share after consulting the recommendations of the .[6] In making its recommendations, the Advisory Committee is required to create a process for receiving input from the state’s localities, provider organizations, and communities.[7] DSS must then make a “good-faith effort” to incorporate the Advisory Committee’s recommendations into the state’s annual budget and publicly provide a written explanation to the Advisory Committee of any substantial deviations from the recommendations.[8]

In 2023, DSS established a to distribute 25% of this share to community organizations that partner with local governments.[9] The grant program is managed by the DSS Division of Behavioral Health and is just one of DSS’s investments from this share.[10]

Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?

No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, South Dakota does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the state share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.

Can I see how this share has been spent?

Yes (public reporting required). South Dakota’s MOA requires the state to publish an annual report that includes expenditures from this share, including any grants awarded (recipients, disbursement terms, and projects funded) online.[11] View annual reports .[12]

Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.

What else should I know?

Not applicable.

Citations

1. S.D. Codified Laws Sec. 34-20B-116(1). , ↑

2. . See also (“The Statewide Share must be used only for (1) Approved Uses within the State of South Dakota or (2) grants for Approved Uses within the State of South Dakota”). ↑

3. (providing that the state’s attorneys’ fees will not be drawn from the “Statewide Share”) and (“Regardless of allocation, all Opioid Funds must be used in a manner consistent with the Approved Purposes definition. No Opioid Funds will be used as restitution for past expenditures. Rather, Opioid Funds must be used in a present and forward-looking manner”). ↑

4. (“‘Approved Use(s)’ means purposes related to opioid abuse treatment, prevention, and recovery programs that fall within, or otherwise consistent with, the list of uses set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference”). ↑

5. The differences are superficial and non-substantive. Note that the national settlements provide for administrative expenses as an approved use, which South Dakota may incorporate but does not state expressly. See I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”). ↑

6. S.D. Codified Laws Sec. 34-20B-116 (requiring the legislature to assign Opioid Abatement and Remediation Fund expenditures to the Department of Social Services), (describing the Department of Social Services as the “lead agency responsible for distributing and using the Statewide Share in a manner that in its judgment will best address the opioid crisis within the State”), and (requiring the Advisory Committee to provide recommendations to DSS on “Statewide Share” uses). ↑

7. . ↑

8. . ↑

9. DSS Press Release. October 30, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024. (“The Department of Social Services (DSS) recently launched the South Dakota Opioid Settlement Fund Community Grant Program”). . DSS. Accessed August 26, 2024. (“Opioid Settlement Fund Community Grant Program DSS utilizes 25% of the statewide share to support South Dakota Organizations efforts to abate and alleviate the impacts of the opioid crisis and co-occurring substance use challenges in South Dakota communities”). . DSS. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Applicants are limited to South Dakota-based organizations,” and “partnering with a participating local government is required for applications to this program”). Review a list of grantees from the Spring 2024 grant cycle . ↑

10. See, e.g., . DSS. August 8, 2024. Accessed August 26, 2024. ↑

11. . ↑

12. See, e.g., . South Dakota Department of Health and South Dakota Department of Social Services. 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

Has the state established an advisory body for settlement funds?

Yes. The South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) creates a 22-member Advisory Committee to receive public input, consider proposals for opioid abatement strategies, and provide formal recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Social Services on the use of settlement funds in the state share.[1] The Advisory Committee’s bylaws detail its responsibilities, which include:[2]

• Establishing eligibility criteria for distributing monies from the state share, including distribution by grant.

• Establishing criteria to allocate the state share among the state’s five behavioral health regions and political subdivisions.

• Establishing criteria regarding core strategies and approved uses of state share funds.

• Receiving grant applications and recommending grant award processes, recipients, and amounts.

• Establishing processes and criteria for evaluating uses of state share funds, including outcome reporting.

• Establishing processes to receive public input on opioid use disorder, co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders, and associated abatement needs and responses.

The Advisory Committee is required to meet at least twice annually and formally recommend expenditures at least once annually.[3]

Is the state advisory body required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience?

No. Neither South Dakota’s MOA nor the Advisory Committee bylaws require the Advisory Committee to include individuals with lived and/or living experience.

What is the overall membership of the state advisory body?

The 22-member Advisory Committee includes six state representatives, six local government representatives, five expert representatives, and five at-large representatives.[4] Specifically, the Advisory Committee includes:[5]

• A representative of the South Dakota Department of Health.

• A representative of the South Dakota Department of Social Services.

• A representative from the South Dakota Board of Pharmacy.

• A representative from the South Dakota Board of Medical & Osteopathic Examiners.

• A representative of the state Attorney General.

• A member of the South Dakota legislature.

• City/county representatives (or their designees) from each of the state’s five behavioral health regions, recommended by the mayors of Rapid City, Sioux Falls, Pierre, Aberdeen, Brookings, and Yankton.[6]

• Five expert representatives drawn from fields such as public health, pharmacology, epidemiology, emergency medicine, behavioral health, and recovery.

• Five at-large representatives “who bring a perspective related to opioid abatement.”

Advisory Committee members serve three-year terms and may serve more than one term.[7] Current Advisory Committee members are listed on the South Dakota Department of Health’s website.

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?

No (up to each locality). Local governments in South Dakota are not required to establish opioid settlement advisory bodies. However, localities may choose to establish advisory councils that include members with lived and/or living experience to help ensure that settlement spending reflects community priorities.

What else should I know?

Not applicable.

Citations

1. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement Sec. IX. ↑

2. Bylaws of the South Dakota Opioid Abuse Advisory Committee Art. II. ↑

3. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement Sec. IX(C)-(D); Bylaws of the South Dakota Opioid Abuse Advisory Committee Art. IV. ↑

4. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement Sec. IX(B). ↑

5. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement Sec. IX(B). ↑

6. Bylaws of the South Dakota Opioid Abuse Advisory Committee Art. III. ↑

7. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Agreement Sec. IX(A). See also Bylaws of the South Dakota Opioid Abuse Advisory Committee Art. III. ↑

This Community Guide will describe how South Dakota is spending its opioid settlements, and whether South Dakota is working to ensure community access to opioid settlement funds. Last revised September 1, 2024.

Where do these monies live?

South Dakota’s local share is distributed directly to its 66 participating localities according to the percentages listed in the MOA’s Exhibit B.[1]

What can this share be spent on?

With limited exceptions,[2] this share must be spent on uses that “fall within” or are “otherwise consistent with” Exhibit A of its MOA.[3] Reimbursement uses of opioid settlement funds are specifically prohibited statewide.[4]

Exhibit A of South Dakota’s MOA largely mirrors the national settlement agreement’s Exhibit E, Schedule B,[5] which includes treatment, prevention, harm reduction, and other strategies.

Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?

Local governments decide autonomously (but must certify proper uses and counties consult their cities and towns). Decisionmakers for the cities and counties decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Approved Uses,[6] provided that counties “regularly consult with and receive input” from their cities and towns and make “reasonable and good faith efforts” to collaborate with them on fund uses.[7] Additionally, localities must certify to the Opioid Advisory Committee — before and after spend — that funds were used according to Exhibit A of South Dakota’s MOA.[8]

Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?

No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, South Dakota does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the local share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.

Can I see how this share has been spent?

Up to each locality (no public reporting required, only intrastate). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share, and local governments are required to report its expenditures only to the Advisory Committee.[9] The state has committed to include information on projects and strategies funded by local governments in its 2024 annual report,[10] but the specificity of any expenditure information remains to be seen.

Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.

What else should I know?

Not applicable.

Citations

1. This includes 1) counties and 2) cities or towns with populations over 10,000. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) II.B. Cf. Opioid Advisory Committee Meeting (August 24, 2022) (“68 partnering counties/cities”). Participating localities excludes the minority of localities that opted to redistribute their shares to the state, as permitted by the MOA. MOA II.C. See also Caleb Barber. Most, but not all local governments in South Dakota receive opioid settlement money. Mitchell Republic. Oct. 17, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Thirteen county governments declined to participate in the funding distribution: Bennett, Buffalo, Day, Douglas, Haakon, Hamlin, Hyde, Kingsbury, Lyman, Marshall, Miner, Moody and Stanley. That resulted in about $20,000 going back to the state pile of funds to be distributed. Commissioners for the county governments that chose not to participate in the settlement funds cited the odd intervals and negligible amounts as being a main reason why they decided against accepting them”). ↑

2. MOA V (providing merely that no attorneys’ fees will be drawn from the “Statewide Share,” and perhaps implying by omission that local governments’ attorneys’ fees will be drawn out of their own “Localized Share”).There are only superficial differences between the national settlement’s Exhibit E and South Dakota’s Exhibit A. Note that the national settlements provide for administrative expenses as an approved use, which South Dakota may incorporate but does not expressly state. Distributor Settlement Agreement I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”). See also Makenzie Huber. Pennington County in dispute with state over opioid settlement amounts. South Dakota Searchlight. August 28, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Pennington County is arguing in court that the state should recalculate its national opioid settlement amounts to pay the county’s litigation costs. … It owes 15% of its entire Janssen settlement in legal fees, which as of the third round of settlements adds up to roughly $14,000, not including future allocations”). ↑

3. MOA I.A (“‘Approved Use(s)’ means purposes related to opioid abuse treatment, prevention, and recovery programs that fall within, or otherwise consistent with, the list of uses set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference”). MOA III.C (The Localized Share must be used only for (1) Approved Uses by Participating Local Governments or (2) grants for Approved Uses”). ↑

4. MOA III.A. ↑

5. The differences are superficial and non-substantive. Note that the national settlements provide for administrative expenses as an approved use, which South Dakota may incorporate but does not expressly state. See Distributor Settlement Agreement I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”). ↑

6. MOA III.A-C. ↑

7. MOA III.D. See also MOU III.E (“Notwithstanding any term of this MOA, Participating Local Governments may collaborate with local governments both within and beyond their borders for the purpose of more effectively using Opioids Funds to abate the opioid crisis”). ↑

8. MOA VI.A-B. ↑

9. MOA VI.B. ↑

10. Federal Opioid Funding Annual Report. South Dakota Department of Health and South Dakota Department of Social Services. 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Participating local governments’ awards were made in Calendar Year 2023 due to the original disbursement occurring at the very end of 2022. Programs, strategies, and projects funded by participating local governments will be included in the 2024 Annual Opioid Report”). ↑