Last year, the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism reported a bombshell about remediation funds that are intended to help curb the ongoing opioid epidemic in Mass. Of the $92.1 million that cities and towns had received in the first two years of efforts to tackle the problem, they only spent about 8%.
These millions of dollars come from companies that played a part in aggressively marketing painkillers while systematically downplaying their addiction risks.
In Fiscal Year 2024, the majority of municipalities did not report making any expenditures at all. During that same period, between July 2023 and June 2024, there were 1,763 opioid-related deaths in the state, more than 95% of them from overdoses.
As local governments have contemplated how to use this money, some have increased spending. Records obtained by BINJ show that of the $113.7 million disbursed to municipalities between 2023 and 2025, cities and towns have collectively spent $19.8 million, or about 17%.
It was a chore to secure the most recent opioid recovery fund spending data. State officials went to great lengths to withhold the numbers, and missed the required legal deadline to make remediation spending info public. But after wrestling with the Department of Public Health for months, Mass reluctantly provided follow-up data that covers FY25 (July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025).
Major takeaways include:
- Some local governments are still using opioid remediation dollars to fund police departments in ways that run afoul of state guidelines.
- Nearly half of Mass municipalities reported no expenditures in this realm in FY25.
- Many cities that spent relatively little last fiscal year are among the biggest recipients.
As for those who did spend (or at least reported money encumbered for specific projects), the largest municipal expenditures were in Boston ($2,586,642), Cambridge ($1,820,420), Lawrence ($1,192,029), Worcester ($1,099,417), and Westfield ($566,353).
But what they spent it on, and how much of the total funding those and others received so much spending represents, is another story.
How opioid settlements are disbursed
Massachusetts anticipates receiving approximately $1 billion by 2038 for opioid abatement efforts, with more than $250 million already disbursed between statewide and municipal commitments. With that funding now arriving, state and local officials have been tasked with mitigating a public health crisis that continues morphing with strange new lethal substances killing hundreds every month.
Settlement funds are divided between local governments and the commonwealth under the State-Subdivision Agreement for Statewide Opioid Settlements. Under this agreement, 60% of abatement settlements go to the Opioid Remediation and Recovery Fund, under the control of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), while cities and towns get the remaining 40%, which is supposed to be allocated toward recovery efforts. To date, more than $113 million has been distributed to municipalities, including about $22 million to 336 out of 351 cities and towns in FY25.
Under the settlement agreement, municipalities are supposed to use these funds only in ways that can supplement and strengthen efforts to recover from the opioid epidemic, without replacing existing funding sources for substance use disorder treatment. As one program manager for opioid response at the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office said in a webinar with town and city fund recipients last year: “They’re not grant dollars and they’re not federal funds.”
Furthermore, the way in which appropriations from these funds are made vary from place to place. Some municipalities delegate decision making to the public health department, while others require council approval. Guidance issued by the Office of the Inspector General in August notes that in most cases, cities and towns are still required to follow state laws about procurement.
Our communications with dozens of municipal workers, as well as the latest DPH data, also show that many have formed ad-hoc boards to field ideas and award grants. That’s within bounds and even encouraged by state fund administrators, but in most cases, such processes have halted spending thus far.
Who isn’t spending
Slightly less than half of municipalities—45%—reported no opioid funding-related expenditures in FY25. Overall, however, spending is on the rise.
Comparatively, in FY23, 92% of cities and towns reported no expenditures from their settlement fund accounts. In FY24, that number dropped to about 60%.
The overall number of municipalities reporting zero spending actually rose in FY25, from 143 to 164, but the total number of reporting municipalities also rose. DPH did not respond to a request for further explanation.
According to department numbers obtained for this article, there was more than $16 million in unspent opioid remediation dollars sitting in municipal coffers at the end of FY25. The biggest non-spenders with the most money sitting idle were Holyoke ($1,115,846), Shrewsbury ($747,142), Waltham ($614,536), Westborough ($585,408), and West Springfield ($524,645).
Who is spending, and how much
Many smaller and near-zero spenders are also among the largest settlement funding recipients. Across the state, 185 cities and towns with nearly $40 million combined all reported spending at levels under 5% of their allocations. Salem spent less than $10,000 in FY25, and still had more than $700,000 in the bank, while Brockton spent in excess of $88,000 with nearly $2 million remaining. Brookline used only $4,000 in FY25, but was able to leverage its spending via a matched $50,000 grant, and still had nearly $900,000 left.
Some cities are beginning to spend these funds in FY26. Holyoke, for example, will soon announce the awardees of grants totalling $1 million. In neighboring Springfield, officials reported expenditures equal to about 2% of the nearly $4 million it has set aside, as of last July. That city’s reported expenditures are seemingly contrary to an announcement made in March about intentions to spend about $450,000 per year on substance use treatment grants for nonprofits. A spokesperson for the City of Springfield did not respond to a request for comment.
Overall, broken down by category, municipalities across the commonwealth combined spent in the following general categories in FY25: subcontracts ($8,446,773); program support ($3,674,081); salaries ($2,846,054); program supplies ($1,669,320); administrative costs ($455,785); program facilities ($374,717).
Who is spending on police
In prior coverage, we also highlighted the amount of opioid remediation funding that is going to police departments—in some cases, for expenditures that skirt the spirit of the program.
Guidance issued by the DPH advises municipalities against funding law enforcement to engage people who use drugs, because “mistrust of police among [drug users] can prevent access to services, and police presence can inadvertently intensify harms and create barriers for meaningful engagement.” However, a review of these new expenditure reports shows that not all local governments are following directions, including some we highlighted in prior reporting.
In FY24, Lawrence spent about $40,000 for “homeless camp cleanups,” including a $3,000 bill to repair a backhoe which broke down during an eviction. In FY25, the city in the Merrimack Valley further funded police “outreach to encampments” to the tune of $77,564. On top of that, Lawrence used $125,419 in opioid remediation dollars to dismantle camps, including $30,000 for “dumpsters.”
Lawrence additionally used $65,000 from its settlement bag for environmental cleanup through the Clean River Project. Neighboring Haverhill also reported spending, about $8,000 total, with the nonprofit, in coordination with the evictions of people living under bridges. Clean River Project President Rocky Morrison defended the expenditures, saying, “Lawrence is a mess, it’s like the hub of homelessness. … Once they pollute an area, they’ll leave and then get a brand new tent and go pollute a new area.”
Also up near the New Hampshire border, the Lowell Police Department allocated $20,000 to assist in the purchase of supplies related to opioid users, while Methuen funded “two patrol officers to support the city’s efforts in expanding availability of support for substance abuse, recovery and mental health efforts, for a total cost up to $60,000.”
Closer to Boston, Arlington spent more than $45,000 on a police department clinician and recovery coach, and on the South Shore, Hingham used $6,000 for “speaker/events/sponsorships” related to National Police Night Out.
In western Mass, Chicopee spent nearly $25,000 “to implement a data-aggregation and coordination platform through the Chicopee Police Department’s Real Time Information Center.” Agawam spent $17,164 on an AI-powered system for recording and transcribing 911 calls.
This article is syndicated by the MassWire news service of the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism. If you want to see more reporting like this, make a contribution at givetobinj.org.
Our ongoing reporting on opioid settlement funds is supported by a grant from the Data-Driven Reporting Project (DDRP) at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.
Jonathan Gerhardson is a freelance journalist in western Massachusetts. jon.gerhardson@proton.me | @jongerhardson.bsky.social
