Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USU Extension recommends prioritizing prevention, warm‑handoff and naloxone in county opioid settlement planning
Summary
USU Extension HEART faculty presented a county review of evidence‑based options for using opioid settlement funds, reporting a ranked list from a 30‑member review team and recommending multi‑agency administration, flexible annual proposals and grants emphasizing prevention and recovery.
Gabriela Mirza, faculty with Utah State University Extension’s HEART Initiative, told the Utah County Commission on Nov. 8 that a county review of possible uses for opioid settlement dollars emphasized evidence‑based strategies and local needs.
Mirza said the review — informed by about 30 professionals representing prevention, treatment, recovery and criminal justice — used national and state guidance and a Qualtrics ranking (25 of 30 responded). The review mapped nine MOU‑eligible strategy areas and identified five that aligned across federal and state recommendations. Based on the review team’s ranking, prevention programs were prioritized first, warm‑handoff programs and recovery services second, naloxone distribution third, and increased treatment access for incarcerated people among other strategies.
Mirza noted the Utah opioid settlement MOU requires a yearly proposal (due May 30) and an annual report (due June 30) for an 18‑year period of payments; she said flexibility exists to reallocate funds year to year based on needs and outcomes. She recommended that the county consider multi‑agency administration (rather than a single administrator), require collaboration within grant or RFA proposals, and weigh reviewer rankings against current unmet needs (for example, naloxone is widely used now and agencies report buying it out of operating budgets).
Data sources Mirza cited included the Utah Department of Health, the Office of the Medical Examiner, and the Violence and Injury Prevention program; she offered to share the project’s detailed matrix and data with commissioners and staff. Commissioners thanked Mirza and said proposals from the health department, sheriff’s office and behavioral health providers are already under consideration; the commission expects to evaluate funding allocations after initial payments are received.
No final spending decisions were made at the meeting; commissioners and staff indicated they expect to prioritize proposals and return with recommendations in coming weeks once settlement payments arrive and staff have reviewed proposals.
