Fairness First: Solving Complex Problems From Behind the Veil of Ignorance

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Tanya Settles
May 16, 2025

Local governments are often described as the most accessible and immediate level of governance, but sometimes they are also the government where inequality can be most visible. From access to housing, public safety, transit and utilities, local governments decide how budgets are allocated, the composition of advisory boards and commissions, and who sits on advisory boards. Local decisions shape daily life in profound ways.

Throughout my time in local government, three broad ideas have guided my work. To start, governments exist to provide that which the private sector cannot or will not bear. Right behind this, governments don’t operate like private businesses because they can’t be something they’re not.

The second guidepost is John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness. Simply put, the best policy decisions benefit the least advantaged among us. Making decisions from a hypothetical position of ignorance about our own advantages or disadvantages ensures fairness for everyone. For local governments, this means creating more equitable, legitimate and sustainable policies. In essence, we protect ourselves by making decisions that protect everyone.

For some decision makers, this approach creates a hard stop that is tangled in a claim that it is beyond the realm of fiscal responsibility to provide costly services and resources to a smaller proportion of people at the risk of ignoring the needs of the majority. Even setting morality and ethics aside, looking at equity and equality at the same time—though recognizing they are different, as powell, Menendian and Ake suggest—can be financially viable and fiscally responsible. As an example, many communities across the nation are facing a complex set of circumstances where people are experiencing houselessness.

The term “houseless” recognizes that people who experience houselessness don’t always identify themselves as being “homeless.” They tell us that they have a home, it just isn’t in a house or permanent place of shelter designed for human habitation. In cities where houselessness is prevalent, there are many corollary social concerns—some of which are accurate, some that are myth, and some that are specific to regions or places. The one certainty learned over the years is that houselessness is complex and often requires collaboration between various work areas within municipal government. These may include public safety, housing, human services, health care, code compliance and sometimes capital infrastructure projects that build physical resources such as navigation centers, intermediate and long-term housing. Resolving houselessness is not a low-cost proposition.

Putting important moral and ethical considerations aside, short-term investment can result in long-term gain. When people receive services and support, particularly wrap-around services, good things happen for state and local governments. The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that on average, a chronically homeless person costs each taxpayer in the United States about $36,000 per year. However, supportive housing placement reduces costs by about half on average. And given that supportive housing costs about $13,000 per year, there’s a net savings of approximately $4,800 per year, per person. Here are two examples of how cost savings through investment result in taking care of the least advantaged among us while at the same time realizing reductions in cost:

• A National Institute of Health report noted that the connection between pathways for stable housing for people experiencing houselessness can have positive long-term financial gains for state and local government. Many, if not most, people who experience houselessness lack health insurance, are more likely to utilize emergency room visits for medical care or mental health services, and have greater rates of chronic health problems than other populations of people. But when they have access to permanent housing, healthcare costs can be reduced by as much as 59 percent, emergency department costs drop by about the same rate, and inpatient hospitalizations decrease. The “Housing First” program in Massachusetts was found to offset a significant portion of the cost of housing for people experiencing houselessness by savings in health care and other areas.

• A 2023 study by the Urban Institute found that improving supportive housing services in Denver offset costs in other areas, particularly related to public safety and the cost of short or intermediate-term shelters. On average, participants in Denver’s Social Impact Bond (SIB) initiative resulted in an average per-person cost savings of about $6,800 in annual costs associated with avoided outcomes in areas such as law enforcement response, jail stays, and acute medical and mental health needs.

Local governments, and the challenges they try to solve, are complex, and houselessness isn’t the only critical issue many municipal and county governments face. Policymaking through the original position and through the veil of ignorance, as Rawls suggests, can be a responsible and responsive way to address those challenges.

---

Author: Tanya Settles is the CEO of Paradigm Public Affairs, LLC. Tanya’s areas of work includes relationship building between local governments and communities, restorative justice, and policy and program evaluation.  Tanya can be reached at [email protected].  The opinions in this column and any mistakes are hers alone. 

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...