Fiscal Determinants of Local Governments Spending Opioid Settlement Funds on Law Enforcement Activities

• In Event: From Funding to Outcomes: Evaluating Opioid Policy, Spending, and Treatment Access

Abstract

Introduction/Background: The opioid settlement agreements provide substantial funds to local governments to invest in strategies that curb opioid use disorder and overdose. As one of the primary local government agencies that interact with people who use drugs, law enforcement may be a primary recipient of these funds. However, their activities may or may not align with the intent of the settlements to expand spending on remediation, though this has not been examined. Purpose/Research Question: To examine the proportion and amount of opioid settlement funds directed toward law enforcement remediation and non-remediation activities and to evaluate whether local fiscal characteristics related to policing are associated with these allocation decisions. Data: We constructed a longitudinal dataset linking detailed, mandated reports of Indiana local government settlement expenditures (2023–2025) with administrative data on local revenue sources and expenditures from the Indiana Fiscal Gateway, and demographic characteristics from the American Communities Survey. Research Design and Methods: Outcomes included the percentage of settlement funds allocated to 1) any law enforcement activities, 2) remediation-aligned law enforcement activities, and 3) non-remediation law enforcement activities. Fractional logit regression models were used to estimate associations between reliance on fines, fees, and forfeitures, and policing expenditures per capita and settlement spending patterns. Findings:  Across study years, 9.81% (SD: 16.14) of all settlement expenditures and a mean of $3,916.86 (SD: 27,922.8) was allocated to law enforcement; this included a mean of $3,222.83 (SD: $23,120.37) on remediation aligned activities, and $8,703.75 (SD: $41,728.45) on non-remediation aligned activities. Local governments with greater reliance on fines, fees, and forfeitures allocated a significantly higher proportion of funds to law enforcement overall (AOR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05–1.18) and to non-remediation law enforcement activities (AOR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.08–1.22). Higher policing expenditures per capita compared to low (AOR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.06–3.24) were also associated with higher odds of allocating funds toward non-remediation aligned purposes.Conclusions/Implications: Jurisdictions that rely more heavily on law enforcement–generated revenue and spend more on policing may be more likely to direct settlement resources toward strategies that are not aligned with opioid remediation, carrying important implications for whether settlement funds ultimately expand spending on opioid remediation as intended. Future research evaluating settlement effectiveness should therefore account for local fiscal incentives, as they may shape both spending decisions and the public health impact of settlement investments.

Author

• Zoe Lindenfeld, Rutgers University - New Brunswick
  Presenting Author