Can I apply for grants?

It depends. As of September 1, 2024, the state has not yet established any grant opportunities for the 50% state share. 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 organizations.

Where do I go for updates?

• For updates on the state share, visit the Department of Health’s Washington State Opioid Settlements website and refer to the State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan’s website for meeting updates. Sign up to receive email updates and reminders from the state opioid response workgroup here.

• To find updates on the local share, a good starting point is to check the websites for your regional opioid abatement council (see, e.g., the Greater Columbia Region and King County regional OACs), city or county council, or local health department (see, e.g., the settlement-specific webpages of Cowlitz County, King County, and the City of Port Angeles).[7]

What else should I know?

The Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee (SURSAC), a legislatively created body required to include people with lived experience, is responsible for recommending policies to the state legislature and working with the Washington State Health Care Authority to implement the state’s substance use recovery services plan.[8] The SURSAC meets monthly and encourages public comments.[9]

Visit the SURSAC’s website to find the dates, times, and attendance information for upcoming SURSAC meetings and instructions on how to submit public comments during meetings. The website also includes materials and recordings from previous meetings, information about the SURSAC’s Safe Supply Work Group, and an email address to submit written feedback ([email protected]).

Citations

1. See Washington opioid settlement frequently asked questions (FAQ), Question 13 (“How can I participate in developing the recommendations for how to use the settlement funds?” “Anyone can provide comments to a SOORP workgroup by contacting the workgroup leads listed in the plan. These workgroups provide input on work from a variety of funding sources, including opioid settlement funds”). Washington State Health Care Authority. January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

2. One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities (Municipalities MOU) Sec. C(4)(g)( ii) (“As a condition of receiving a direct payment, each Participating Local Government that receives a direct payment agrees to undertake the following actions: ii. Ensuring there is opportunity for community-based input on priorities for Opioid Fund programs and services”). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

3. Public Survey for Opioid Settlement Funds Now Available. Spokane County news release. October 24, 2023 (Archived). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

4. Note: Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act requires “the governing body of a public agency” to “provide an opportunity at or before every regular meeting at which final action is taken for public comment.” Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 42.30.240(1). Washington’s opioid settlement-related documents do not clarify whether Regional Opioid Abatement Councils (OACs) constitute such governing bodies, but agreements establishing some Regional OACs require compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. See, e.g., (“Meetings shall be properly noticed to all Council Members and in compliance with RCW 42.30, the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)”). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

5. . The University of Washington School of Nursing, guided by the Research with Expert Advisors on Drug Use (READU). June 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

6. See “” King County Opioid Settlement website. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

7. As of January 2023, “[w]hile there is not yet an official coordinating body comprised of state and local officials, it is anticipated that state planning efforts will engage in a coordinated way with local and regional Opioid Advisory Councils in the future. Details about engagement and collaboration with local/regional entities are emerging and will be shared when available,” and the Health Care Authority “expect[s] to work with Association of Washington Cities and Washington State Association of Counties in some way.” . Washington State Health Care Authority. January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

8. Wash. Rev. Code. Ann. Secs. 71.24.546(1), (2)(a), and (6)-(7). See also . Washington State Health Care Authority. June 10, 2021. Accessed September 1, 2024. The SURSAC may propose ways to expend opioid settlement funds. See, e.g., the group’s , which was submitted to the Governor in December 2022, proposes funding some strategies with opioid settlement funds, including capital construction costs for new opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and expanding the reach of existing OTPs. ↑

9. See “.” SURSAC . Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

In general, and with limited exceptions,[3] this share must be spent only on the forward-looking opioid remediation uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[4] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and other strategies.

The Attorney General has expressed that this share will be spent consistently with Washington’s State Opioid and Overdose Response (SOOR) Plan,[5] which focuses on the following priority goals:[6]

1. Prevent opioid misuse

2. Identify and treat substance use disorder

3. Ensure and improve the health and wellness of individuals that use drugs

4. Use data to detect opioid misuse/abuse, monitor illness, injury and death, and evaluate interventions

5. Support individuals in recovery

The 20% of this share that is annually transferred to the Tribal Opioid Prevention and Treatment Account (beginning July 2025) must be spent to “address[] the impact of the opioid epidemic in tribal communities” by funding “[p]revention and recovery services,” “treatment programs[,] including medication-assisted treatment,” “peer services,” “awareness campaigns and education,” and “support for first responders.”[7]

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

Workgroups and governor provide input, state legislature decides. The Washington state legislature ultimately decides specific expenditures for this share,[8] inclusive of the 20% allocated to the Tribal Opioid Prevention and Treatment Account.[9]

According to FAQ responses authored by the Washington State Health Care Authority,[10] the legislature is informed by input from a chain of key stakeholders:

1. The State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan (SOORP) workgroup provides recommendations to the SOORP “executive sponsors” (representatives from key state agencies and academia).[11]

2. The SOORP executive sponsors use the workgroup’s recommendations to develop their own funding recommendations, which are then provided to the Governor’s office.[12]

3. The SOORP executive sponsors’ recommendations may be integrated into the Governor’s budget, which contains funding proposals for the legislature’s consideration.[13]

Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?

No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, Washington does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the 50% 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 (neither public nor intrastate reporting required). The Attorney General has published a one-time summary of appropriations for the state legislature’s 2023-25 biennium.

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. Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Settling Opioid Distributors in Washington State (Allocation Agreement I) Para. 9.A and Washington State Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Certain Opioid Manufacturers and Pharmacies (Allocation Agreement II) Para. 10.A. Wash. Rev. Code Sec. Sec. 43.79.483(1) (“The opioid abatement settlement account is created in the state treasury. All settlement receipts and moneys that are designated to be used by the state of Washington to abate the opioid epidemic for state use must be deposited into the account”). ↑

2. Laws of 2024, Chapter 210, Sec. 3 (Tribal Opioid Prevention and Treatment Account) (“A new section is added to chapter 43.79 RCW to read as follows: The tribal opioid prevention and treatment account is created in the state treasury. All receipts from the transfer directed in RCW 3.79.483(3) must be deposited in the account”) and Wash. Rev. Code Sec.43.79.483(3) (“Beginning July 1, 2025, and each fiscal year thereafter through June 30, 2031, the state treasurer shall transfer into the tribal opioid prevention and treatment account created in section 3 of this act from the opioid abatement settlement account an amount equal to the greater of $7,750,000 or 20 percent of the settlement receipts and moneys deposited into the opioid abatement settlement account during the prior fiscal year”). ↑

3. Wash Rev. Code Sec. 43.79.483(1) (“Expenditures from the account may only be used for future opioid remediation as provided in the applicable settlement”) (emphasis added) and I.SS (“Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”).. ↑

4. Wash Rev. Code Sec.43.79.843(1) (“Expenditures from the account may only be used for future opioid remediation as provided in the applicable settlement. For purposes of this account, "opioid remediation" means the care, treatment, and other programs and expenditures, designed to: (a) Address the use and abuse of opioid products; (b) treat or mitigate opioid use or related disorders; or (c) mitigate other alleged effects of, including those injured as a result of, the opioid epidemic”). and (“Exhibit A of the MOU is replaced by Exhibit E”); and I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation”). ↑

5. See . Washington Attorney General press release. June 18, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The Legislature will determine how the state share is further allocated in communities around the state. All spending decisions must be consistent with the state ”). See also (“Washington State identified the State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan as the collaborative framework where consensus recommendations on the use of opioid settlement dollars would be developed and submitted for consideration by the Governor’s Office”). ↑

6. . Washington State Health Care Authority (HCA). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

7. . ↑

8. Wash. Rev. Code 43.79.843(1) (“Money in the account may be spent only after appropriation”). See also . HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The legislature will approve final use of the 50% of abatement funds and returned AGO attorney fees”). ↑

9. ("Moneys in the [tribal opioid prevention and treatment account] may be spent only after appropriation”). ↑

10. “The following responses have been … updated as of 01/06/2023.” . HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

11. . HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The SOORP workgroups (made up of subject matter experts and stakeholders from tribal and local communities) provided recommendations to the SOORP executive sponsors (key state agencies and academia)”). ↑

12. . HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The executive sponsors then sent their resulting recommendations to the Office of the Governor”). See, e.g., . ↑

13. . HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The Governor’s budget includes a set of recommendations for use of the funds for consideration and approval by the Legislature. Opioid settlement items found in DOH and HCA budgets. In the HCA agency recommendation summary, opioid settlement uses are marked “DS” and can be viewed . In the DOH agency recommendation summary, opioid settlement uses are marked with “Settlement” and can be viewed ”). ↑

With limited exceptions,[6] this share must be spent only on the opioid remediation uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[7] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and other strategies.

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

Local governments decide autonomously (with regional council oversight). Decisionmakers for the local governments may ultimately decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Exhibit E approved uses.[8]

Each region must establish an Opioid Abatement Council (OAC) to oversee regional distributions, review the expenditures of participating local governments in the region, and publish its activities to a dashboard.[9] To receive their monies directly, local governments are required to create a process for receiving, reviewing, and approving or denying funding proposals; ensure opportunities for community input; and report its expenditures to its regional OAC and the public.[10] Regional OACs may suspend participating local governments’ direct payments if they use funds for non-approved uses, fail to satisfy the MOU’s reporting requirements, or fail to meet the conditions for direct payment described above.[11]

If participating local governments forego their shares, regional OACs are responsible for directing and administering the distribution of those funds based on proposals from community groups or localities.[12]

Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?

No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, Washington does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the 50% 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?

Eventually (public reporting required). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share. Expenditure data will likely be published by the Regional Opioid Abatement Councils (OACs), given that each are required to “[d]evelop[] and maintain[] a centralized public dashboard or other repository for the publication of expenditure data.”[13]

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. Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Settling Opioid Distributors in Washington State (Allocation Agreement I) Paras. 9.B-10, Washington State Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Certain Opioid Manufacturers and Pharmacies (Allocation Agreement II) Paras. 10.B-11, One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities (MOU) B.1 (“All Opioid Funds shall be held in a [Qualified Settlement Account] and distributed by the Trustee, for the benefit of the Participating Local Governments, only in a manner consistent with this MOU”) and MOU B.3 (referring to Exhibit B). See also Allocation Agreement I and Allocation Agreement II Para. 3.A-3.D (defining “Participating Local Governments” to mean those participating in Washington’s opioid settlement agreements) and Washington Opioid Settlement FAQs. HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The 125 eligible cities and counties that signed onto the distributors settlement are covered by a memorandum of understanding (MOU),” and “[a]ll 125 of these cities and counties signed onto the MOU as of 10/3/22”). ↑

2. MOU B.3 (“In the event any county does not participate in this MOU, that county’s percentage share shall be reallocated proportionally amongst the Participating Counties by applying this same methodology to only the Participating Counties”), MOU C.4(c) (“Cities and towns with a population of less than 10,000 shall be excluded from the allocation, with the exception of cities and towns that are Litigating Participating Local Governments) and MOU C.4(f) (“A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local Government will not receive a direct allocation of Opioid Funds. The portion of the Opioid Funds that would have been allocated to a Local Government that is not a Participating Local Government shall be redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed in C.4.a above”). ↑

3. (“Allocation and distribution of Opioid Funds within each Participating County will be based on regional agreements as described in Section C”) and (“For the purpose of this MOU, the regional structure for decision-making related to opioid fund allocation will be based upon the nine (9) predefined Washington State Accountable Community of Health Regions (‘Allocation Regions’)”). See, e.g., . ↑

4. (“Opioid Funds will be allocated, distributed and managed within each Allocation Region, as determined by its Regional Agreement as set forth below. If an Allocation Region does not have a Regional Agreement enumerated in this MOU, and does not subsequently adopt a Regional Agreement per Section C.5, the default mechanism for allocation, distribution and management of Opioid Funds described in Section C.4.a will apply. Each Allocation Region must have an OAC whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by Regional Agreement or as set forth in Section C.4”) and (describing that “Opioid Funds shall be allocated within each Allocation Region by taking the allocation for a Participating County from Exhibit B and apportioning those funds between that Participating County and its Participating Cities and Towns” and that “[a] Participating County, and the Cities and Towns within it may enter into a separate intra-county allocation agreement to modify how the Opioid Funds are allocated amongst themselves, provided the modification is in writing and agreed to by all Participating Local Governments in the County. Such an agreement shall not modify any of the other terms or requirements of this MOU”). ↑

5. (“Participating Local Governments may agree and elect to share, pool, or collaborate with their respective allocation of Opioid Funds in any manner they choose by adopting a Regional Agreement”). See also (requiring that each Allocation Region have an Opioid Abatement Council) and (“Each Participating County, City, or Town may elect to have its share re-allocated to the OAC in which it is located. The OAC will then utilize this share for the benefit of Participating Local Governments within that Allocation Region, consistent with the Approved Purposes set forth in Exhibit A”). ↑

6. and (depositing 15% of the Local Government Share in the Government Fee Fund (GFF) to pay local governments’ continency fees), (“10% of the Opioid Funds received by the Region will be reserved, on an annual basis, for administrative costs related to the [Opioid Abatement Council]. The OAC will provide an annual accounting for actual costs and any reserved funds that exceed actual costs will be reallocated to Participating Local Governments within the Region”), (“Reasonable administrative costs for a Participating Local Government to administer its allocation of Opioid Funds shall not exceed actual costs or 10% of the Participating Local Government’s allocation of Opioid Funds, whichever is less”), - (describing the Government Fee Fund (GFF) and 15% of funding going to it). ↑

7. (“‘Approved Purpose(s)’ shall mean the strategies specified and set forth in the Opioid Abatement Strategies attached as Exhibit A”) and (“All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be utilized pursuant to Approved Purposes as defined herein and set forth in Exhibit A”). See , (“Exhibit A of the MOU is replaced by Exhibit E”) and I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation”). ↑

8. (“Participating Local Governments that receive a direct payment maintain full discretion over the use and distribution of their allocation of Opioid Funds, provided the Opioid Funds are used solely for Approved Purposes”). See, e.g., Teresa Simpson. . Whitman County Gazette. July 4, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (describing process by which Whitman County’s Board of Health recommends expenditures, which Commissioners then approve). ↑

9. (“Prior to any distribution of Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region, The Participating Local Governments must establish an Opioid Abatement Council (OAC) to oversee Opioid Fund allocation, distribution, expenditures and dispute resolution. The OAC may be a preexisting regional body or may be a new body created for purposes of executing the obligations of this MOU”) and (describing regional OACs’ oversight duties, including dashboard creation). ↑

10. . ↑

11. , i.e. an amendment to add MOU C.4(g)(vii) (“If a Participating Local Government receiving a direct payment (a) uses Opioid Funds other than as provided for in the Distributors Settlement, (b) does not comply with conditions for receiving direct payments under the MOU, or (c) does not promptly submit necessary reporting and compliance information to its Regional Opioid Abatement Counsel (“Regional OAC”) as defined at Section C.4.h of the MOU, then the Regional OAC may suspend direct payments to the Participating Local Government after notice, an opportunity to cure, and sufficient due process. If direct payments to Participating Local Government are suspended, the payments shall be treated as if the Participating Local Government is foregoing their allocation of Opioid Funds pursuant to Section C.4.d and C.4.j.iii of the MOU. In the event of a suspension, the Regional OAC shall give prompt notice to the suspended Participating Local Government and the Settlement Fund Administrator specifying the reasons for the suspension, the process for reinstatement, the factors that will be considered for reinstatement, and the due process that will be provided. A suspended Participating Local Government may apply to the Regional OAC to be reinstated for direct payments no earlier than five years after the suspension”). ↑

12. (“In the case where Participating Local Governments chose to forego their allocation of Opioid Funds: … Approving or denying proposals by Participating Local Governments or community groups to the OAC for use of Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region. … Directing the Trustee to distribute Opioid Funds for use by Participating Local Governments or community groups whose proposals are approved by the OAC. … Administrating and maintaining records of all OAC decisions and distributions of Opioid Funds”). ↑

13. . ↑