Given Baltimore’s long-standing problems with drug abuse — including suffering one of the highest overdose death rates of any city in the nation — it is not customary to read about hopeful developments in this arena. Yet, in recent weeks, there has been reason for at least some degree of optimism. Lawsuits filed against manufacturers and distributors of opioids, the chief culprit in these untimely city deaths, have one by one resulted in substantial financial settlements. This week alone brought in tens of millions of dollars from Walgreens, the drugstore chain, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Israeli-based generic drug maker. With a handful of companies yet to go, Baltimore will likely end up (even after paying its legal bills) with more than a half-billion dollars related to this opioid litigation.

Mayor Brandon Scott deserves some credit here. Baltimore could easily have joined larger lawsuits. It would have been safer to leave legal expenses to others — but the city would have wound up with much smaller settlements, perhaps just one-third of what its efforts have so far produced. And while it’s also encouraging to see some portion of the money already apportioned to the frontlines of the ongoing war on fentanyl and other painkillers, such as funding the 988 crisis hotline, what comes next is just as crucial as any court proceeding. It’s essential that the public be engaged in deciding exactly how to spend the settlement money, that there is absolute transparency in how those funds are used, and that Baltimore has authoritative oversight over those programs so that what programs work (or perhaps do not work) can be fairly evaluated.

We believe the mayor understands this. These same goals are essentially outlined in the executive order he signed just last month, setting up the city’s opioid restitution fund, which anticipates an advisory board and at least two new hires to help with oversight. The fund is expected to be slowly tapped over many years (perhaps at a rate of 5-to-10% annually), much like how private foundations operate. This makes a lot of sense. Baltimore’s opioid epidemic did not happen overnight, and correcting it will take many years as well.

And what strategy will prove most effective? Presumably, treatment programs can prove helpful. Same with those aimed at prevention. But what about simply providing affordable housing so that people whose lives have been derailed by addiction can become more productive members of society? Or, conversely, doing a better job of educating the public about the dangers of opioids or distributing quantities of lifesaving naloxone, the drug that can reverse an overdose? What is the cost-benefit there? A well-informed analysis is essential.

Yet it’s reasonable to worry that Baltimore’s bureaucracy will not rise to this challenge. Consider, for example, the scathing findings of Baltimore Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming, who in July found the Baltimore Department of Public Works had so badly failed to provide water, ice or working air conditioning to solid waste employees laboring in scorching conditions, a circumstance that likely contributed to the death of a BPW worker just weeks later during a Code Red heatwave. Can a city that failed to keep an ice machine in working order be trusted to properly measure far more complicated health outcomes? Had this been the only example of bureaucratic failure uncovered by the IG, that would be one thing. Sadly, it is not.

That’s another reason why public involvement is important as this restitution program is fleshed out. It’s great to have public health experts on board — the involvement of Sara Whaley, a nationally recognized expert on these matters with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, is certainly encouraging — but ordinary Baltimoreans must also have a seat at the table. Many understand what it’s like to see 921 lives lost to fentanyl, as Baltimore experienced last year. And they know what it means for families, neighborhoods, businesses and schools. That is an expertise that needs to be tapped as well. Their involvement will go a long way to maintaining trust that grants are going to where they are needed and not to the well-connected, whether in the business or political community.

Kudos to Mayor Scott for making some good choices so far. But instead of quickly dispersing funds to popular local programs, let’s spend this money wisely and with greater public involvement and oversight. Such efforts can’t replace lost lives, but they can surely save many lives that are now at risk.