The Principles Quick Guide to Creating a Competitive RFP Process for Opioid Settlement Funds
Upcoming Events
Related News
The Principles for the Use of Funds From the Opioid Litigation are nationally recognized guidance for states, counties, and cities receiving money from the lawsuits against entities that contributed to the opioid epidemic. These planning Principles, coordinated by faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, can help jurisdictions create a foundation for effective spending of the monies to save lives from overdose. This guide was adapted from numerous templates, tools, and guidance documents developed by the Michigan Association of Counties.
The Principles for the Use of Funds from the Opioid Litigation encourage governments to create a fair and transparent process for the use of opioid settlement funds (Principle 5). This quick guide provides local governments with a streamlined process for allocating opioid settlement funds using a fair, competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) or comparable grantmaking process.
What is an RFP process?
A competitive RFP is a formal process used by local governments to invite qualified organizations, such as nonprofits, service providers, or community-based agencies, to apply for funding to carry out specific programs or projects. The RFP outlines key details, including the purpose of the funding, eligbility requirements, funding priorities, evaluation criteria, reporting expectations, and submission timelines.
Why is an RFP process important to use?
RFP processes promote transparency and fairness by allowing for a variety of applicants from across the substance use continuum of care (prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery) and encouraging innovation and rigor through its competitive nature. Competitive bid process encourage applications to include data-driven solutions to address specific local needs. They also allow local governments to outline clear and specific expectations associated with priorities, expected outcomes and impacts, and reporting requirements. Creating a formalized structure through an RFP can support long-term planning and assist in building public trust.
Who executes an RFP process?
Responsibility for managing the RFP process should be clearly defined to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with community priorities.
Local government staff often oversee the logistics of the process, including issuing the RFP, receiving submissions, coordinating committee meetings, and facilitating contract execution. For local governments with capacity limitations, ensuring a competitive process for community-based organizations and county departments is still important. When these limitations arise, the RFP responsibilities may be outsourced to an external grantmaking entity, such as a community foundation.
A settlement council of local stakeholders and people with lived and living experience often determines the strategic priorities for the RFP. If participants on the settlement council are submitting proposals themselves, a neutral group from the settlement council — free from conflicts of interest — reviews and scores the proposals. If that is not possible, members of the settlement council may fill out a conflict-of-interest form.
Having a clearly defined structure and delegation of responsibilities enhances trust and ensures that the RFP process abides by legal requirements and can incorporate the voices of those most impacted by the opioid epidemic.
Steps for Effective RFP Fund Management and Oversight
Form a Settlement Council
- Convene a multi-stakeholder advisory body (public health officials, community representatives, people with lived and living experience, etc.) — this group guides priorities but does not make final funding decisions
Establish a Neutral Group to Review Proposals
- Create a neutral expert panel, free from conflicts of interest, to score and recommend proposals. Include voices of those with lived and living experience for a grounded perspective
Design a Transparent and Competitive RFP
- Clearly state funding goals (ideally sourced from a recent needs assessment)
- Outline eligibility criteria for consideration (e.g., organization status, location, financial and legal requirements, etc.)
- Specify reporting requirements and desired outcome metrics to be reported by grantees (ideally aligned with state and national reports to minimize administrative burden)
- Preview scoring rubric and criteria
- Provide templates for budgeting and contracts
- Offer support through pre-application webinars and technical assistance
Review Proposals and Determine Awards
- Use standardized scoring tools
- Require conflict-of-interest disclosures and reviewer guidelines
- Rank proposals, review recommendations in committee, and submit recommendations for approval to the governing body – often the local board of elected county officials
Execute Contracts and Set Expectations
- Formalize agreements with awardees, detailing funding amounts, performance periods, reporting schedules, outcomes, and flexibility for mid-course corrections
Public Launch
- Announce grantees, host onboarding sessions, and distribute tools (e.g., reporting forms) to align processes and support implementation
Ensure Ongoing Monitoring and Transparency
- Standardize reporting requirements to align with state-level and National Settlement Administrator requirements. Provide flexibility and support to grantees around reporting to minimize administrative burden
- Maintain public-facing information on where funds are being used and impact of those funds
- Solicit community feedback (e.g., through town halls or public hearings)
- Continually adapt funding priorities for future RFPs in response to emerging trends and community needs
Download these templates to get started:
Conflict of Interest Form for settlement council members
RFP and RFP Budget for release to the public
RFP Scoring Rubric for settlement council use
Recipient/Grantee/Vendor Agreement after final grantees have been selected
County Examples
Arapahoe County, Colorado
In 2022, Arapahoe County developed an intergovernmental agreement with its municipalities to form a regional council composed of county and municipality elected leaders, county and municipality law enforcement, district attorney, and county public health and human services leadership. After identifying critical gaps in programming to address substance use disorder, the regional council formed a two-year strategic plan and issued a Request for Qualifications. Unlike a traditional RFP, which requires organizations to submit fully developed program plans, an RFQ is designed to identify partners with the ability to co-create services. Arapahoe County’s RFQ for withdrawal services – a gap identified by the regional council in its strategic planning process – can be found here. The news article pertaining to the RFQ can be found here.
Ogemaw County, Michigan
In 2023, Ogemaw County developed an opioid settlement advisory committee comprised of county commissioners and representatives from local provider organizations, including the local health department, emergency medical services, sheriff's office, community corrections, medical and behavioral health treatment providers, a recovery housing provider, a recovery support providers, and individuals with lived experience, among others. The group conducted a county-wide needs assessment, during which the committee oversaw a funding and service landscape analysis to better understand local needs from individual and organizational perspectives. With priorities outlined from the data collected, an RFP was developed and disseminated widely within the county and among service providers. The Ogemaw County RFP can be found here.
Brunswick, Halifax, and Mecklenburg Counties, Virginia
In 2024, counties in Virginia's Southside Planning District Commission – Brunswick, Halifax, and Mecklenburg – worked with a local university to engage the community for input on strategies to prioritize funding with opioid settlement dollars. The following year, the counties released a joint competitive RFP, accompanied by a pre-proposal webinar, budget and timeline templates, scoring rubric preview, and desired performance measures. To minimize administrative burden on applicants and potential grantees, performance measures and budget templates requested from applicants were aligned to information required by the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority. Applicants were also encouraged to review strategies prioritized by the community engagement process and were awarded extra points for addressing one or more of those. The Southside Planning District Commission's RFP can be found here, performance measures workbook here, and scoresheet here.
Forsyth County, North Carolina
Forsyth County accepts proposals through a competitive RFP process once a year. Proposals are then reviewed by a cross-sectional team including behavioral health county staff, county management, a representative from the local managed care organization, representation from the Health & Human Services Board, and a member of the finance/grants management team. To support applicants, county staff hold an information session prior to the application and offer to meet individually with each organization not awarded funding to help them prepare for future applications or connect with others in the community. Ongoing collaboration among all funded providers is encouraged through quarterly gatherings to address barriers and emerging community supports. The 2027 Forsyth County RFP can be found here.
Doña Ana County, New Mexico
From the start, Doña Ana County committed to a process guided by the Johns Hopkins Principles for the Use of Funds from the Opioid Litigation, including input from a settlement council, use of a needs assessment, and continuous monitoring and evaluation to fund strategies likely to have the highest local impact. The needs assessment identified four priorities and the county issued its 2025 RFP for three of those – (1) Medicated Assisted Treatment (MAT), (2) enrich prevention strategies, and (3) expansion of warm handoff programs and recovery services. To add further specificity to the RFP, the county's Opioid Advisory Council, which meets monthly, used the Opioid Settlement Principles Resource and Indicators (OSPRI) tool to select specific metrics they hoped to achieve with investments from opioid settlement dollars and to target investments to communities particularly impacted by the opioid crisis. Doña Ana County's 2025 RFP can be found here.
Acknowledgments
This resource was adapted by Amy Dolinky, Technical Adviser on Opioid Settlement Funds Planning and Capacity Building with the Michigan Association of Counties in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and National Association of Counties. The Principles are supported by the Bloomberg Philanthropies Overdose Prevention Initiative.
The Principles Quick Guide to Conducting a Needs Assessment
The Principles for the Use of Funds From the Opioid Litigation are nationally recognized guidance for states, counties and cities receiving money from the lawsuits against entities that contributed to the opioid epidemic.
The Principles Quick Guide to Creating a Settlement Council
The Principles for the Use of Funds From the Opioid Litigation are nationally recognized guidance for states, counties and cities receiving money from the lawsuits against entities that contributed to the opioid epidemic.
The Principles Quick Guide to Removing Policy Barriers
After decades of research into effective interventions for opioid use disorder, there are now many evidence-based solutions to the prevention, treatment, recovery, and reduction of harms associated with opioid use. For an evidence-based program to produce the intended results, it may first be necessary to remove laws and regulations that interfere with proper implementation of the program. By conducting a policy review, county leaders can proactively identify and amend policies that may otherwise limit the impact of opioid settlement investments.
The Principles Quick Guide to Monitoring Opioid Settlement Spending
The Principles for the Use of Funds From the Opioid Litigation are nationally recognized guidance for states, counties, and cities receiving money from the lawsuits against entities that contributed to the opioid epidemic.
The Principles Quick Guide on Transparency for Opioid Settlement Fund Management
The Principles for the Use of Funds From the Opioid Litigation are nationally recognized guidance for states, counties and cities receiving money from the lawsuits against entities that contributed to the opioid epidemic. These planning Principles, coordinated by faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, can help jurisdictions create a foundation for effective spending of the monies to save lives from overdose.
Firefighter and First Responder Grants Now Open for Counties
On May 18, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), announced $648 million in grant funding for firefighters and other first responders nationwide.
New Law Brings Long-Sought Transparency to FEMA Disaster Reimbursements
A new federal law requires FEMA to publish a publicly accessible, interactive dashboard tracking all Public Assistance reimbursement requests, giving counties unprecedented visibility into disaster recovery funding.
Counties eye potential Medicaid reimbursement remedies
Increasing the number of beds in mental health treatment facilities eligible for Medicaid reimbursement would empower counties to do more to help their residents.
Counties Recognize Mental Health Awareness Month
The National Association of Counties (NACo) again this year will mark Mental Health Awareness Month throughout the month of May with counties advocating for solutions that support the wellbeing of residents and address the nation’s mental health crisis.
Featured Initiative
Opioid Solutions Center
NACo's Opioid Solutions Center empowers local leaders to invest resources in effective treatment, recovery, prevention and harm reduction practices that save lives and address the underlying causes of substance use disorder.
