Award Selection Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The purpose of the grants is to help public school districts recover from the opioid epidemic and develop responses to enhance educating students harmed by the opioid epidemic. For the purposes of this grant program, students harmed by the opioid epidemic include students born with neonatal opioid withdrawal symptoms, many of whom require special education support, as well as students who have suffered traumatic family loss and educational interruptions because of the opioid epidemic.

Public school districts (e.g., not private or charter school networks). Public school districts could apply with partner districts, as well as with partner public agencies and institutions and with private, philanthropic and community organizations.

Districts could apply for one or more of three types of grants, each with a maximum grant value of $500,000, to be spent over three fiscal years after the award of the grants.

These types of grants were:

1. District Improvement Grants intended to help districts of all sizes respond to system-wide challenges triggered by the opioid epidemic, including improving how they coordinate and align their resources with complementary resources in their wider communities in support of services for students harmed by the opioid crisis. These grants might include efforts to improve:

• The identification of students in need, as well as the processes and structures that channel these students into available services, especially special education services
• The types of school programs and modifications available for these students given their needs,
• The capacity of adults in districts to support these students,
• The tools with which districts assess the progress of these students and respond accordingly to their needs, and
• The bridges between the district and its schools, and among the district and surrounding civic and community resources to maximize opportunities for these students and augment the capacity of the district to serve them.

We encouraged districts to partner with external agencies and organizations in applying for this type of grant. We also encouraged small and/or rural districts to partner with each other to leverage resources and achieve economies of scale.

2. Model Programs and Best Practices Grants, to help districts build or adopt model programs, based on evidence, to support students harmed by the opioid crisis, including programs and best practices in areas such as teaching approaches, curricular modifications, extended learning opportunities, mental health supports and restorative practices, forms of acceleration and enrichment, and using technology to foster student engagement and increase student learning, etc.

Districts could apply for these grants with external civic and community partners or with partner districts. We are primarily interested in improving special education programs serving these students, but we are also interested in the development and improvement of programs that address the needs of these harmed students before classification or in cases when these students have not been classified.

3. Innovation Grants to enhance the ability of districts to introduce and test new, innovative approaches to support students impacted by the opioid crisis. These approaches can be at the level of the student, the class, the school and/or the district in relation to the family and community and include areas such as teaching approaches, curricular modifications, extended learning opportunities, mental health supports and restorative practices, forms of acceleration and enrichment, and using technology to foster student engagement and increase learning, etc.

Districts could apply for these grants with external civic and community partners or with partner districts. We are primarily interested in improving special education programs serving these students, but we are also interested in the development and improvement of programs that address the needs of these harmed students before classification or in cases when these students have not been classified.

The Trust was established as a result of national opioid litigation resolutions involving school districts, which were represented by Mehri & Skalet and their co-counsel, and defendants such as McKinsey & Company, Endo International PLC, and Mallinckrodt PLC. By investing directly in schools, the Trust ensures that resources are directed where they are most urgently needed, protecting students’ futures as well as responding to the immediate crisis.

Public School Districts received notification through multiple methods. The Trust sent notices in writing to over 14,000 public school districts, using multiple data sources to ensure receipt and multiple attempts to verify an address when delivery failed. The notice included a link to the Trust website and a description of the program and application process as well as a link to the Request for Proposal (RFP). Additionally, Special Trustee notified first in writing, and later through email and calls, influential intermediaries such as state education chiefs and state associations of school board members and superintendents.

Districts submitted 205 distinct proposals for funding from 147 lead districts and 47 partner districts, spanning 34 states and American Samoa. Notably, eight states—New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Illinois –generated more than 10 applications each. Appendix A (PSDORT Applications and Participation by State) shows the pre-award application and participation data of applicant school districts by state.

Applicants were invited to submit proposals in one of three categories: District Improvement (DI), Model Programs and Best Practices (MP), and Innovative Programs (INV). The distribution of applications by category is reflected below:

The set of grant proposals received confirms that the Trust’s outreach strategies including sustained engagement with intermediaries, follow-up communications, and the intentional RFP design were successful in reaching the small, rural, and under-resourced districts most affected by the opioid crisis.

By Enrollment

By Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility (FRL)

By % of Students with Disabilities (SWD)

Each grant application was assigned to two neutral reviewers drawn from a panel of 30 distinguished national leaders, including current and former school district and state superintendents, school board members, leaders in special education and family engagement, public health officials, foundation executives, researchers, and policy experts. Appendix B – PSDORT Reviewers.

Dr. Alonso also personally briefed each reviewer to ensure their familiarity with PSDORT’s goals and to explain the evaluation rubric, which assessed proposals across five dimensions: (1) program design and implementation, (2) alignment with PSDORT’s goals, (3) organizational capacity, (4) measurable objectives, and (5) budget. Appendix C – PSDORT Grant Evaluation Rubric and Appendix D – PSDORT Grant Evaluation Priority Considerations.

To supplement district-provided materials, the review team consulted two external datasets to assign objective opioid “impact” scores:

1. AARCOS data (2006-2021): county-level data on the number of opioids dispensed in the county, compiled by the DEA (and measured in morphine milligram equivalents, or MME).
2. Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) birth data (2008-2022): statewide NAS birth rates per 1,000 births, compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Using these datasets, the review team placed applicants into one of five tiers based on their respective MME and NAS rates, which were then averaged into a combined “impact” score (ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating the lowest and 5 indicating the most severe impact). While acknowledging that the ARCOS and NAS data might not precisely reflect conditions in every applicant district, Dr. Alonso and the team concluded that these data provided useful information for evaluating the comparative severity of the opioid crisis in each applicant district and usefully supplemented districts’ self-reported information.

The applications were ranked ordered by their combined reviewer score. From the highest score applications, Dr. Alonso consulted with the Committee of District Representatives (please refer to question 13. “What is the Committee of Public-School Districts’ Representatives (PSDR)?” for more information regarding the PSDR) to select the winning applications applying decision rules that emphasized the evidence of the impact of the opioid crisis in the selected communities and the potential for positive impact in the proposals.

Given funding constraints and the need to provide meaningful award amounts, 51 proposals were selected for funding representing 39 lead districts and 25 partner districts across 20 states and American Samoa. Appendix E – PSDORT Award List and Appendix F – PSDORT Awards by State.

Of the 51 proposals selected for awards:

• 47 high scoring proposals had combined impact scores of either 5 or 4. Two additional high scoring proposals lacked NAS data but had MME scores of 5.
• 1 high-scoring Model Program and Best Practices proposal had no impact score, but the reviewers found its case persuasive and did not want to penalize the applicant for data limitations beyond its control.
• 1 high scoring proposal had a combined impact score below 4 but represented a collaboration of 11 partner districts with high potential, and a second proposal, although not among the highest 60 scorers overall, was selected because it brought together 9 partner districts for a particularly promising venture.

Awards by Impact Score

Awards by Grant Type

Award by Lead District Enrollment

Awards by Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) Rate

Awards by Students with Disabilities (SWD) Rate

Appendix G – PSDORT Award Application Summaries provides brief summaries of each winning proposal, along with selected comments from the reviewers. As reflected there, across the board, reviewers deemed proposals the strongest when they gave a clear definition of the problem(s) the grant will solve, a strategy closely aligned with that definition, a feasible implementation plan, realistic scopes, and specific attention to personnel and roles, particularly in under-resourced contexts.

The next phase of grant making will depend on the timeline of ongoing settlement negotiations involving public school districts and multiple defendants, and on the content of resolutions and court orders in those cases. We will send timely notification when the next proposal period begins.

You can read about the Trust here.

The trustees are Dr. Andres Alonso, the Special Trustee, and Truist Bank, Trustee. Truist Bank is the administrative trustee (https://www.truist.com/). Truist holds trust funds and makes distributions under the direction of the Special Trustee. As Special Trustee, Dr. Alonso spearheads the program design and evaluation metrics of the grant program. He works collaboratively with a review team to ensure an open, fair, competitive process. With his educational expertise and leadership, Dr. Alonso holds the overall program authority and serves as the primary decision-maker guiding the program to achieve its strategic objectives. Dr. Alonso has extensive experience in education. He has served in all levels of public education including having served as CEO of Baltimore City Public Schools, Deputy Chancellor for Teaching and Learning for New York City Schools, and Professor of Practice at Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he co-chaired its Public Education Leadership Project (PELP). Dr. Alonso taught English Language Learners and students with disabilities for more than a decade at Newark, New Jersey public schools. He has served as trustee in numerous public and non-profit boards, including the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGBE), the William T. Grant Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He is a former trustee of Teachers College of Columbia University and still serves in its President’s Advisory Council. He presently serves as a trustee of Data Quality Campaign, the Center for Collaborative Education, the Panasonic Foundation, and Scholastic Corporation.

The PSDR is a committee of three to five individuals with experience in education to counsel, advise, and facilitate communication between public school districts and the Special Trustee, as well as to inform the Special Trustee and support the interests of school districts. The three individuals presently serving as districts representatives are Ricardo Adams, former board member of Rochester Public Schools; Karl Kristoff, General Counsel at Orleans/Niagara BOCES and former counsel to many New York districts; and Lindsey McIntosh, General Counsel at Kanawha, WV County Board of Education.

Mr. Adams retired from Center for Youth in 2022. He has been involved with multiple public education groups as well as completing a four year term on the Rochester City School Board in January of 2024. Ricardo’s wife Mary also served on the School Board for six years. He has two daughters who are currently attending Rochester City School District. One is a sophomore, and the other is a senior heading to Howard University in the fall.

Mr. Kristoff is General Counsel and Director of Labor Relations at Orleans/Niagara BOCES (NY). He has been engaged almost exclusively in the practice of school law for more than 40 years. He has been admitted to practice in the courts of both New York and Illinois as well as the United States Supreme Court. In addition to his law practice, Karl has served in the adjunct faculties of the State University of New York at Buffalo Schools of Education and Law and currently serves as an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the School of Education of the Buffalo State University. He has advised numerous upstate New York districts in his career.

Ms. McIntosh is a West Virginia native and a graduate of West Virginia University. Her tenure as Assistant General Counsel to Cabinet Secretary at the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources gives extraordinary insight into the issues districts and communities experience tackling the opioid epidemic. She presently serves as general counsel at Kanawha, WV County Board of Education.