Tennessee Opioid Abatement Council approves $25 million in Cycle 2 community grants, adopts policies and oversight steps

The Tennessee Opioid Abatement Council voted on June 16 to allocate $25 million in Cycle 2 community grants from the state opioid abatement trust fund, approving award packages across six strategy areas and taking several governance and oversight actions aimed at strengthening fiscal controls and equity in future grant cycles.

The council’s office reported it received 294 Cycle 2 applications requesting $416,994,997; 220 passed initial eligibility review. The council set a $25,000,000 Year‑1 award target and distributed that total across the six strategy categories the council had previously adopted (education & training; harm reduction; primary prevention; recovery support; research & evaluation; and treatment). The council approved award packages during a series of roll‑call votes and directed staff to finalize contracts.

Why it matters: The council is using settlement and trust funds tied to opioid litigation to fund community programs statewide. The Cycle 2 awards, together with ongoing county payments and contractual monitoring, represent the council’s largest near‑term disbursement of funds intended to reduce deaths and expand services across Tennessee.

What the council approved and decided - Grant funding: The council approved award packages that together allocate $25,000,000 in Year‑1 funds across the six strategy areas. Office staff provided package options organized to meet the strategy targets and to try to balance regional representation. Approved packages included a mix of university research partners, local health departments and nonprofit recovery and prevention programs; staff will finalize contract amounts and terms in the executed contracts. - Monitoring and corrective action: The council directed the executive director to develop a contract corrective action and termination process for grantees, to be brought back to the council for formal approval. Staff said fiscal site monitoring completed for earlier grants identified $72,000 in unallowable costs and recommended a transparent remediation and termination path if needed. - Policy approvals: The council approved three governance items the office presented: the Community Advocacy Panel organizational policy, the OAC organizational policy (rules for council meetings, quorum, duties of chair/vice chair), and a written Conflict of Interest policy and attestation. The office said those policies will be posted publicly after final signatures. - Administrative and technical items: The council voted to approve estimated upgrades and updates to the SmartSimple application portal (Strategic Technology Solutions) for grant administration; the estimated cost presented was approximately $15,790 (planning/implementation estimate captured in staff materials). - Process direction for future cycles: The council adopted a motion to continue allowing multiple awards to the same organization for Cycle 2 (because that cycle was already closed) but directed staff to take up a policy in an interim meeting to consider limiting awards to a single grant per agency for Cycle 3 and to consider a 15% cap on indirect costs for Cycle 3. The council also asked staff to research the legal/federal basis for the suggested 15% figure and report back.

Key budget and monitoring figures presented - Trust fund position (as reported at the meeting): net cash available $184,424,371 (statement date as shown in the office report). - Cycle 2: 294 applications; $416,994,997 total requested; council Year‑1 award pool set to $25,000,000. - County annual payments distributed: roughly $31,400,000 (2023), $31,000,000 (2024), and $24,400,000 (recent months) had been distributed to counties; staff said routine county reporting and a SMART initiative update are pending. - Cycle 1 implementation: staff reported 113 Cycle‑1 grants fully executed and more than 7,900 invoices processed (total paid > $25,000,000 since July 2024). Fiscal monitoring identified $72,000 in funds deemed unallowable in site reviews to date.

Equity, regional representation and scoring discussion Council members debated how to balance scoring and geographic equity. Several members pressed for special attention to underrepresented regions (particularly West Tennessee) and argued that scoring should not mechanically exclude smaller community providers. Council members also raised concerns about high indirect cost rates in applications and the risk that university pass‑through awards concentrate funding away from front‑line community groups.

Council staff response and next steps Staff said they would: - Publish the final lists and award documents on the OAC website (the office indicated the spreadsheet used in meeting materials will be posted). - Implement the corrective‑action/termination process the council authorized and bring a final draft policy back to the council for approval. - Continue fiscal and program monitoring for Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 grantees, with a monitoring plan updated to incorporate lessons learned. - Return to the council in an interim meeting to refine the Cycle‑3 grant rules (including the single‑award limit and an indirect cost cap, if adopted).

What the council did not decide The council did not finalize a single statewide quota for regional equalization during the meeting; members asked staff to bring data and options back for a focused discussion on geographic equity between meetings. The council also did not adopt an immediate cap on indirect costs for Cycle 2 awards; that was scheduled for consideration before Cycle 3.

Context and background The Tennessee Opioid Abatement Council was formed to distribute funds from opioid litigation settlements and related sources to community programs that prevent opioid misuse, expand treatment and recovery supports, and fund research and evaluation. The Cycle 2 awards followed a statewide competitive solicitation; staff presented technical reviews, scoring results and suggested “packages” sized to each strategy target to help the council reach the $25 million Year‑1 distribution.

What to expect next Staff said they will post the full award matrices and contract documents, begin contracting and execute monitoring plans. The council asked staff to return to an interim meeting to finalize the Cycle‑3 rules on multiple awards per agency and indirect cost caps, and to bring back supporting research on the 15% indirect‑cost benchmark.

Ending note Council members and staff repeatedly framed the day’s votes as an opportunity to put funds into communities “now” while strengthening oversight and refining grant rules for the future. The council closed the meeting after a public comment period and administrative items.