A JOINT RESOLUTION directing the Legislative Research Commission and state agencies to collaborate to create a statewide fiscal map of substance use disorder programs and funding sources.
SJR74 directs the Legislative Research Commission (LRC) to work with several state agencies to create a statewide fiscal map of Kentucky’s substance use disorder (SUD) programs and funding sources. The resolution defines SUD programs broadly to include treatment, prevention, recovery housing, workforce reentry, education, criminal justice diversion, opioid abatement, and recovery support services. It requires the map to identify current funding sources, amounts, and uses; inventory programs and their eligibility, services, and capacity; and highlight duplication, fragmentation, unmet needs, and gaps.
The resolution also requires the completed fiscal map to be posted on the LRC website by October 30, 2026, and directs the LRC to submit a report to the General Assembly by that date with a summary of the map and options for a statewide plan to improve future SUD funding and program decisions. The bill gives the LRC flexibility to assign the work to an interim joint committee or subcommittee and set a different completion date if needed.
If adopted, SJR74 would not amend existing statutes or create new regulatory requirements for providers, but it would formally direct state government to conduct a cross-agency review of SUD spending and programs. The practical effect would be to centralize information that is currently dispersed across multiple funding streams and agencies, including health, justice, education, labor, courts, and the attorney general’s office. The resolution is intended to support budgeting, accountability, outcome measurement, and future policy design, especially in light of opioid settlement funds and other SUD-related investments.
The available voting history shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition: the Senate adopted the resolution 37-0 and the House adopted it 95-0. The bill text itself frames the measure as a planning and coordination tool to improve transparency and strategic use of public funds. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable, with lawmakers treating the fiscal map as a practical, noncontroversial step toward better oversight of substance use disorder spending.
No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes show no opposition, so there is little evidence of direct contention. The only potential policy tension suggested by the bill is between agencies’ existing program-specific tracking and the resolution’s push for a centralized statewide picture, which may require data sharing, coordination, and additional administrative work. Another possible point of discussion is how the resulting map and report might influence future funding priorities, especially for opioid abatement dollars and other SUD resources.