Elizabeth leaves 90% of opioid settlement money unspent as addiction crisis demands action

The struggle of local governments to spend their National Opioid Settlement Funds effectively is a growing point of contention across New Jersey and the United States.

The city of Elizabeth has accumulated more than $1.6 million in opioid settlement funds but left more than 90% of the money unspent, raising questions about the urgency of its response to an addiction epidemic that has devastated families and claimed thousands of lives across New Jersey.

According to the city’s latest report to the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Elizabeth received $1,615,617.72 in opioid settlement funds but had $1,459,177.97 remaining unspent and uncommitted as of June 30, 2026.

That means approximately 90.3% of the money remained available rather than being committed to treatment, overdose prevention, recovery assistance, or other programs intended to reduce the human toll of opioid addiction.

The city’s financial disclosures show that Elizabeth has developed several educational and prevention programs, but its overall spending remains modest compared with the amount of settlement money available.

The contrast is particularly striking because the settlement proceeds were intended to help communities respond to the consequences of the opioid epidemic, not simply accumulate reserves for future use.

The official responsible for combatting the opioid crisis was busy last year getting married and running a successful campaign for the Board of Education, but the drug epidemic did not take time off for Stephanie Clervoyant-Noel’s social and political pursuits.

Elizabeth’s unspent money highlights a systemic bottleneck where local authorities hesitate to distribute cash due to complex regulations, bureaucratic hurdles, or a lack of concern for drug users.

Elizabeth’s latest report identifies $44,490.69 in expenditures during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, along with $1,078 in appropriations that had not yet been spent.

The report also lists $1,360,994.10 in cumulative settlement funds received since payments began in 2022, a figure that differs from the larger total provided in the city’s financial summary. The reporting document identifies an additional $254,623.62 received during the latest fiscal year and $3,385.96 in accrued interest.

Those figures warrant reconciliation, but the central finding remains clear: The city reported retaining approximately $1.46 million in unspent and uncommitted opioid settlement money.

City emphasizes prevention rather than treatment

Elizabeth officials described their approach as an effort to prevent addiction before it develops, particularly among young people who may not be reached by traditional treatment services.

“During this reporting period, our opioid abatement strategy was grounded in a single overarching goal: to interrupt the pathway to substance use disorder before it begins, by investing in the young people who are most at risk and least served by traditional treatment systems,” the city said in its annual disclosure.

The strategy reflects an emphasis on education, early intervention and youth development rather than exclusively financing treatment for people already experiencing substance use disorders.

City officials said decisions about spending settlement funds involved the Department of Health and Human Services and the City Council.

Elizabeth also reported consulting residents and community stakeholders through its Mayor’s Wellness Committee, Overdose Fatality Review Team and Municipal Alliance Committee.

Those groups meet regularly to provide recommendations and help shape public health programs, according to the city’s disclosure.

Nevertheless, Elizabeth acknowledged that it had not completed a demographic or geographic risk assessment, a tool that could help identify neighborhoods and populations facing the greatest danger from addiction and overdose.

Although the city reported having a strategic plan, it said the plan was not publicly available online.

The lack of a completed risk assessment raises questions about how effectively Elizabeth can direct its substantial unspent resources toward residents facing the greatest need.

Programs reach few students, seniors and residents

The city’s 2026 disclosure identifies several programs financed through its opioid settlement allocation.

The largest reported expenditure was $27,317.32 for Project Recover, an initiative that expanded community outreach through pop-up events in neighborhoods experiencing high numbers of overdose incidents.

The city reported conducting 12 street-corner outreach sessions, serving 85 participants, distributing 20 naloxone lockboxes, and supplying 600 doses of Narcan, a medication that can reverse opioid overdoses.

Those activities demonstrate that Elizabeth has undertaken direct harm-reduction work, although the scale of the spending remains small relative to its settlement funds.

Other reported expenditures included:

• $10,892.04 for opioid awareness education and prevention services through Building Future Leaders Youth Program, which reported reaching 85 participants through seven educational sessions.
• $2,568 for the Police Department’s Law Enforcement Against Drugs program, which reported reaching 120 children and young adolescents.
• $2,156 for an Overdose Fatality Review Team intended to examine deaths, identify gaps in intervention and recommend prevention strategies.
• $1,995 for a Healthy Aging Summit addressing opioid safety, pain management and alternatives to opioid medications, which reported serving 55 seniors.

Together, those five expenditures total $44,928.36, slightly more than the $44,490.69 identified in the report’s overall expenditure summary. The discrepancy is another accounting detail that warrants clarification.

The programs address legitimate public health objectives, including preventing substance misuse among children, educating older residents and distributing overdose-reversal medication.

However, the report does not establish how many residents obtained addiction treatment or sustained recovery services through the city’s settlement-funded initiatives.

Nor does it demonstrate whether the programs have reduced overdoses, emergency medical responses or drug-related deaths.

Millions available, but spending remains limited

The national opioid settlements resulted from litigation alleging that pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies contributed to the opioid epidemic through their marketing, distribution and dispensing practices.

New Jersey and its participating local governments are receiving settlement payments intended to support approved opioid remediation activities.

Those activities can include treatment, recovery support, prevention, harm reduction, education and other interventions designed to reduce the consequences of opioid addiction.

There is no requirement that every municipality immediately spend its entire allocation. Governments may distribute money over multiple years to support long-term programs.

However, the distinction between prudent financial planning and unnecessary delay becomes increasingly important when large balances remain unused while residents continue to face overdose risks.

Elizabeth’s disclosure indicates that officials have made spending decisions over three to five years, but it does not provide a publicly accessible strategic plan showing when the remaining $1.46 million will be deployed.

The state’s reporting framework requires municipalities to submit annual disclosures, making it possible for residents to examine how settlement funds are being used.

Questions remain about the city’s response

The financial records do not establish wrongdoing or misuse of settlement money. They do, however, raise questions about why more than nine-tenths of Elizabeth’s available resources remained unspent or uncommitted after several years.

Among the most significant unanswered questions are whether the city intends to expand treatment and recovery services, how much of its remaining allocation will be spent during fiscal 2027, and what measurable outcomes officials expect from their prevention strategy.

The city has also not supplied a completed geographic risk assessment identifying which neighborhoods face the greatest overdose risks.

Elizabeth’s emphasis on young people may help prevent future addiction, but it does not eliminate the need for services for residents already experiencing substance use disorders.

Effective responses to the opioid epidemic generally require both prevention and access to treatment, overdose-reversal medication, recovery assistance and continuing support.

The city’s own reports demonstrate that such programs can be implemented. Project Recover, for example, has distributed hundreds of doses of Narcan and conducted outreach in neighborhoods where overdoses have occurred.

The larger question is why Elizabeth has not committed substantially more of its available funding to those efforts.

For families who have lost loved ones to overdoses, and for people struggling to obtain treatment, the distinction between money allocated and money actually spent can have immediate consequences.

More than $1.45 million remains available for Elizabeth to expand its response.

The challenge facing city officials is to demonstrate that those resources will translate into meaningful public health services before more lives are lost.