Imagine what’s possible in a community where there is a high level of mutual trust between residents and their local government. This is an ideal that many communities strive for but often find difficult to achieve. Yet, it’s a powerful notion that underscores our bold experiment in democracy.
Survey research widely demonstrates that people tend to trust local institutions more than national ones, including government and media. However, trust is in measurable decline across the board. New Hampshire, despite its strong tradition of local governance and citizen participation, is not immune to this national trend (Mallory, 2024).
As that trend persists, the democratic ideals that inspire participatory governance, like the tradition of a town meeting, become less tenable. As a result, citizens can become progressively more removed from the decisions made by government that impact their communities and lives. However, as this paper will discuss, there are ways to confront and potentially reverse this trend at the community level.
Key insights
There are qualitative, quantitative, and subjective methods for measuring public trust. Weave’s Social Trust Index aggregates and interprets publicly available data. Subjective methods observe conditions on-the-ground and online.
Higher levels of trust have carry-through effects for quality of life and community vibrancy in addition to the effective functioning of local government.
Public trust requires citizens to trust their government and for government to trust its citizens.
People who are involved, informed and engaged tend to hold more trust.
This information brief will help public officials and community volunteers understand how to measure trust in communities and comprehend the implications of trust at the local level.
What is trust in a community context?
Trust has many definitions, but fundamentally, it is the belief in the abilities and integrity of a trustee. In a community context, trust refers to two main phenomena:
- Relational Trust: This is the trust community members have in one another. It can be specific to individuals or general concerning the community. Relational trust can also be narrow, focusing on a specific issue, or broad, encompassing many aspects.
|
|
Relational Trust Issue Set |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
People |
|
Narrow |
Broad |
|
Specific |
Someone trusts their neighbor to alert them about suspicious activity while they are away |
Someone trusts their neighbor will be cooperative and helpful on whatever issues come up |
|
|
General |
Someone trusts everyone in the neighborhood to drive safely while children are playing near the road |
Someone trusts that people in the community will be cooperative and helpful on whatever issues come up |
|
Public Trust: This is the trust community members have in public institutions and officials. It can be specific towards individuals and entities or general concerning the local government. Public trust can also be narrow, addressing a specific issue, or broad, covering many issues.
|
|
Public Trust Issue Set |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
People |
|
Narrow |
Broad |
|
Specific |
Someone trusts the town’s snowplow driver will not block their driveway in with snow |
Someone trusts the longtime town manager will be helpful on whatever issues come up, and if there is an issue they will contact the town manager directly |
|
|
General |
Someone trusts local government will execute a specific project effectively |
Someone trusts local government will be efficient and effective on all issues under their purview |
|
Aspects of Community Trust
- Reliability: People can rely on each other to keep promises and follow through on commitments.
- Transparency: People believe they will have access to the information they need, and there will be effective and consistent communication.
- Competence: People trust in the abilities, competence, and knowledge of others to perform tasks well or ensure they are done well by others.
- Good Intentions: People act in the community’s interest when expected to do so, demonstrating care for one another.
Adapted from Eriks Dunens (Hoelting, 2022)
Measuring Trust
While trust within any community is hard to measure, there are a few ways it can be observed and understood.
Social Media Networks
Local community Facebook groups and other social media networks such as Nextdoor often reveal, and potentially even exacerbate, dynamics of trust between people and their local government and with one another. These groups often blend posts about mundane topics like mail delivery mix-ups, positive and helpful posts about local happenings, and more controversial and heated conversations.
We may be able to glean insights into the level of trust in any given community by analyzing the composition of posts and how much engagement these different types of posts are receiving. Online social networks can be positive catalysts for building trust when they are used to effectively organize and solve problems in real time, share knowledge, cultivate connections, and complement a community’s physical spaces. At the same time, social networks can be negative catalysts when used to turn people against each one another, spread misinformation, and proliferate negativity.
Some communities are embracing digital engagement platforms such as Zencity and Go Vocal[1] that host and analyze this conversation, facilitating community input into actionable ideas. Digital engagement platforms are designed as a more productive alternative to existing social networks and are managed by the local government as a tool for outreach and engagement.
Board Meetings
Local board meetings can provide valuable insights into community decision-making, but they can also be misleading. A common perception is that these meetings often attract disproportionate participation from individuals or groups with a vested interest in a specific issue or issues. This can mean that testimony and conversation at board meetings might not be representative of the full community. Even when citizens broadly rate their local government well, “much of what administrators hear may be complaints rather than praise since citizens and the media appear more likely to criticize than to compliment public service” (Melkers and Thomas, 1998). Sometimes seeing an unexpectedly large turnout for a meeting can signal resonance, whether positive or negative, but may also merely reflect a high degree of organization from an interest group.
But perhaps more insightful is how members of a board and municipal staff respond to and engage with those attending meetings. Is engagement more proactive, focused on educating residents and encouraging their participation? Or is it more reactive, where local government officials are consumed with responding to complaints and controversies? There will always be some of the latter, but higher trust communities may see more of the former than lower trust communities. Likewise, we may be able to gain insights on civic health based on local election results, namely whether proposed budgets and warrant articles are approved or rejected.
Transparency and Access
On a related note, is the degree to which local government takes steps beyond what is required to increase accessibility and boost participation. For example, does a community enable those watching a meeting remotely to testify? Is it easy or hard to find information on the town website? Are local officials friendly and welcoming to those who show up to make their voice heard, ask questions, or simply observe? Although it sounds formal, local governments can develop on-ramps to participation. This can be as simple as sharing who to talk to, how to learn more, and what opportunities there are to participate. Those already involved may take for granted how intimidating it can be to participate, given the rigidity of meeting procedures, the complexity of applicable statutes and ordinances, and the technical nature of local policy making.
Messaging
There may also be insights gained from looking at the attitudes of those who run for local office, and those who win those elections. Given that local government positions in New Hampshire are mostly non-partisan, the degree to which candidates and elected officials highlight their political ideologies may yield insights on a community’s civic health. This aligns with broader trends that show a nationalizing of local politics, where messaging around issues most relevant to national politics permeate down to the local level.
According to World Bank social scientist Michael Woolcock, rather than tap into best-practice solutions adopted from elsewhere to problems determined by outsiders, it is best to focus on locally nominated and prioritized problems as the basis for crafting the best fit for local solutions (Local Solutions for Local Problems, 2013). While this argument is made in the context of international development work, it also applies neatly to the messaging and approach to governance of candidates for local office.
Volunteerism
Volunteerism is another indicator of trust. Are there a variety of local volunteer committees dedicated to addressing local issues, like recreation, master plans, sustainability, education, economic development, housing, energy, and specific local projects? Are there enough volunteers for these committees, and do volunteers actively participate? Are these groups and committees inclusive and welcoming to new members? Is there a group of citizens who publish a newsletter? Communities with high levels of trust are often enriched with an active culture of volunteerism.
Research from the Do Good Institute at University of Maryland finds that an increase in volunteerism seems to encourage people to do favors for their neighbors more often as well as join community groups and organizations (Dietz, 2024). The relationship between volunteerism, association, and trust appears to be strong, so in a community with a strong culture of volunteerism and association you may expect higher levels of trust, and vice versa.
Other Frameworks for Measuring Trust
The Aspen Institute, an educational and policy studies organization, hosts Weave: The Social Fabric Project, focused on addressing what they characterize as a “crisis of broken trust” in the United States. They developed a Social Trust Index to measure trust at the local level across the country. They measure trust using three indicators: trusting behavior, trusting intentions, and trusting spaces. When you enter a zip code into their interactive map, you will see a score for each of those indicators on a scale of 0-100.
- Trusting behaviors measures people’s actions, including their membership in local institutions, volunteerism, voting, and participation in community events.
- Trusting intentions measures people’s sentiments, using surveys and social media data.
- Trusting spaces measures whether there are physical spaces to gather and connect.
Dr. Bruce Mallory from the UNH Carsey School of Public Policy thinks of trust as existing across three overlapping and interdependent dimensions: social trust, civic trust, and institutional trust. Mallory talks about social trust as how people treat one another outside of formal institutions and governing bodies. Civic trust refers to more formal associations, such as volunteer boards, committees, and organizations. Institutional trust, which Mallory observes is synonymous with public trust, refers to formal bodies comprised of compensated authority figures in society including local government departments, media, and certain corporate entities (Mallory, 2024). This way of looking at trust through the lens of the institution is complementary to Weave’s Social Trust Index, which uses behavior, sentiment, and physical space indicators.
[1] Any reference to commercial products, trade names, or brand names is for information only, and no endorsement or approval is intended.
Implications of Trust
The implications of trust at a local level are significant, as trust can both help a community come together and develop solutions or hinder the capacity of a community to function and reduce quality of life.
Social Capital
In writing about social capital, Jody Horntvedt for University of Minnesota Extension links building trust in communities to strong networks and interpersonal ties within said communities. The social capital model aligns well with and informs the three-indicator model of trust from Weave: The Social Fabric Project. Hornvedt cites research showing that communities with higher levels of social capital have better health and education outcomes and lower crime levels. Hornvedt also describes a variety of activities that boil down to people caring about their neighbors and communities and doing little things to support and strengthen them. Examples are numerous, such as checking on neighbors during a power outage, organizing a community garden, bringing a box of cookies to the family that just moved in, picking up litter on the side of the road, giving helpful information to someone who posts a question in the local Facebook group, or volunteering on a town committee dedicated to building a new park.
"Change happens at the speed of trust."
- M. R. Covey
Relationship Between Community Engagement and Trust
Successful community engagement leverages community input to influence and drive adoption of initiatives. The idea is simple: invite community members to participate in identifying priorities and opportunities and then implement solutions grounded in the feedback and ideas people shared. The theory, borne out in practice, is that community members are more likely to support initiatives when they have an opportunity to provide meaningful input and can see that the initiative is developed using that input. As Stephen M.R. Covey writes, “change happens at the speed of trust”, and as trust goes down costs increase too (Covey, 2006). Covey also coined the term ‘low trust tax’ to describe that phenomenon.
When community engagement is strong and trust levels are high, there can be a positive feedback loop in which public officials and the community work together to solve and implement solutions. Stephen Goldsmith, director of Data-Smart City Solutions at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University writes that “trust empowers local officials to rally public support for large, aspirational goals.” Creating more opportunities to assemble influences trust between citizens and local officials, and that trust enables productive civic discourse and allows for flexibility in policy making (Maskell, 2000). An informed citizenry is also strongly correlated with higher trust in local government (Edelman Trust Barometer Index, 2021).
When community engagement is weak, but trust levels are high, public officials may have the ability to develop and implement solutions anyway. Public officials may identify time, money, resources, and potential criticism as reasons to minimize community engagement (Yang, 2005). But that carries risk, because if the community later comes to disapprove of an initiative and hadn’t been meaningfully engaged to develop and implement that initiative, trust levels may go down.
"Trust empowers local officials to rally public support for large, aspirational goals."
- Stephen Goldsmith
When trust levels are lower, even the most fundamental acts of governance can be strained, leaving little capacity to solve problems. If proposed annual budgets and warrant articles are routinely rejected by voters, that signals a breakdown in the feedback loop. This could mean that the community wasn’t engaged, and/or that their feedback wasn’t incorporated. In some cases, it can also signal low levels of trust.
The way in which a community is engaged can be crucial. Sherry Arnstein’s well known Ladder of Citizen Participation is a model that illustrates a continuum, or a metaphorical ladder, of what she terms as participatory power (Arnstein, 1969). Sometimes local officials may think they implemented strong community engagement, but the engagement strategy may have been more focused on informing or superficially consulting their citizens rather than empowering them in the process. Especially when levels of trust are lower, “citizens often view these programs as ‘window dressing’” and refuse to participate (Yang, 2005).
"Local government leaders believe trust is the biggest issue facing local governments today."
- Government Leadership Solutions
Even with strong engagement, voters may still reject proposals. When budgets and warrant articles are rejected, capacity to solve problems may be redirected to simply find a way to move forward on how to fund essential local functions.
Building Trust
Rebuilding trust can take years and require going above and beyond, even as community members discount or express hostility towards those efforts and even organize to undermine them. That can be deeply frustrating.
Rebuilding trust in citizens towards their local government may require public officials to trust their citizens first. Kaifeng Yang writes that local officials “are not likely to proactively implement trust-enhancing reform policies if they do not trust citizens” and “a theory of improving citizens’ trust in government is incomplete without an explanation of administrators’ trust in citizens because trust is mutual and reciprocal” (Yang, 2005). In practice, this means that local officials are welcoming, encouraging, and respectful of citizen participation, and earnestly attempt education and outreach. This is predicated on the belief that residents have valuable personal knowledge, experience, and ideas that can contribute to effective local governance.
But by taking the time to measure trust in a community and going deep to understand it at a more granular level, efforts to regain or build trust can be more successful. If using the Social Trust Index, a community may find that there are strengths to build on and challenges to focus on and address. It’s crucial for local officials to demonstrate they are listening and showing that they understand where people are coming from.
According to the Government Leadership Solutions’ 2023 State of Local Government Leadership Pipeline study, local government leaders believe trust is the biggest issue facing local governments today. Their research also shows that the ability to attract and retain talent, which is the second most significant challenge for local government, is directly connected to public trust in local government. This has a carry-through effect through which a quality, well-staffed workforce can provide better services and foster transparency, directly impacting public trust in local government. These relationships help illustrate why local government leaders believe trust is the biggest issue facing local governments today.
“Talk is cheap,” – a phrase popularized by author T.C. Haliburton in The Attaché – captures this idea profoundly. Or as Robert D. Eskridge and Ellen Key conclude, “if leaders want to develop more trust in their city, they can do a lot to accomplish it by simply working to provide a better-quality service to their citizens” (Eskridge & Key, 2016).
Parting Thoughts and Recommendations
Eroding trust at the national level is a headwind, but there is much that can be done at the local level to incrementally cultivate trust.
Effectiveness of government programs, transparency between government and its citizens, and participatory engagement are all associated with higher levels of public trust. The most fundamental takeaway from this information brief is that increasing effectiveness and transparency, and designing and implementing inclusive, deliberate and well-planned engagement are impactful steps towards fostering more trust in a community.
There are numerous qualitative and quantitative approaches to measuring public trust, but what’s important is taking the time to examine and reflect on trust dynamics at the community level. This may start by identifying indicators, and then analyzing those findings to glean themes, including strengths and opportunities for improvement. From there, local government may strategize internally, but also consider engaging the community to solicit feedback on findings and discuss actions that may increase trust. Transparency and thoughtful, inclusive engagement can foster trust while also generating community-driven solutions to increase trust even further.
This initiative may be something to consider as part of a master planning process, or as an independent initiative. It may be something a local board or organization is interested in spearheading, or it could be something a town administrator wants to lead. Transparently evaluating and proactively building public trust is an underutilized but important component to local governance. UNH Cooperative Extension's Community & Economic Development team helps communities design processes to address local challenges, including building public trust.
Six Tips for Communities to Build Trust
- Create a Welcoming and Respectful Culture: New and previously inactive residents benefit from extra effort to onboard them into the community and guide them on how to get involved. Treat all people and opinions with respect and redirect them to the most appropriate venues for participation as necessary. View questions from the public as opportunities for education and engagement.
- Enhance Communication and Transparency: Proactively share information in various formats and ensure community members understand how they can engage with it. This requires commitment and coordination from all departments.
- Foster Inclusive Participation: Reach out to underrepresented and underserved populations using a “meet people where they are” approach. Consider potential barriers to participation and find ways to alleviate them.
- Weave Connections: Build connections between local organizations, businesses, and residents. Honor and value the community’s assets, seek and cultivate partnerships, and create opportunities for people to come together.
- Demonstrate Consistency, Reliability, and Competence: Follow through on commitments and validate public input to build trust.
- Communicate Openly During Crises: View times of crisis as critical moments of inflection to communicate openly, foster transparency, and seek and honor public input. During scandals or unexpected challenges, residents are more likely to pay attention and may change their views of local government based on how the crisis is handled.
UNH Cooperative Extension’s Community & Economic Development team provides training, resources, and technical assistance to municipalities to support their community engagement efforts. Learn more about how we support community leadership on the UNH Extension website.
Any reference to commercial products, trade names, or brand names is for information only, and no endorsement or approval is intended.
UNH Cooperative Extension Related Work and Resources
Social Capital
Over the years, the UNH Extension’s Community & Economic Development team has carried out a variety of programs focused on assessing and building social capital.
Past research conducted by UNH Extension and its partners has found that more walkable communities and neighborhoods are not only healthier, but are also more socially connected. This research found that in areas where people walk more, people had higher levels of community involvement and trust. Understanding the value of walkable communities has informed ongoing programming, including Downtowns & Trails, which explores opportunities for linking a community’s downtown area and nearby recreational and natural assets.
When a community enrolls in the program, local volunteers are a key driver, including information collection. In the most recent enrolled community, Hopkinton, volunteers working in pairs to conduct assessments of discreet geographic areas established connections while discussing their perspectives with each other in collaborative ways. This paid dividends in subsequent phases because of the social capital built during the assessments, which enriched the data and how it was interpreted and analyzed. Volunteers brought unique perspectives and experiences and were more invested in the process and outcome of the work because of their involvement. One of the many reasons UNH Extension values the inclusion of volunteers in a wide variety of programs is because volunteer involvement can make projects more sustainable in the long-term and more likely to succeed in contrast to programs carried out exclusively by staff and consultants.
Community Engagement
UNH Extension’s Community & Economic Development team has also implemented a wide variety of trainings, and on-the-ground technical assistance, to support local community engagement.
One example of that is a program called Engagement Academy, an interactive and intensive program open to community development professionals and citizen volunteers. Sessions have focused on cultivating best practices for engagement, helping participants develop engagement strategies grounded in the unique needs, assets, and culture of their communities.
Most recently, UNH Extension and its partners have hosted Housing Academy, which has blended the curriculum of Engagement Academy with education about housing policy. This has empowered participants to design and implement engagement strategies to pursue community-driven reforms to local land use regulations to promote more housing opportunities. This work has included a commitment to technical assistance to support community engagement efforts after the conclusion of Housing Academy. This work is still in the early stages, but there’s already evidence that strong community engagement is associated with more successful ballot initiatives.
Learn More
- Donovan, M. (2018). Community Outreach and Engagement. University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. https://extension.unh.edu/resource/community-outreach-and-engagement-information-brief
- Hoelting, J (2022). Building Trust in Communities. University of Minnesota Extension. https://extension.umn.edu/vital-connections/building-trust-communities
- Mallory, B. (2024). Social, Civic, and Institutional Trust: Necessary Conditions for a Pluralistic Democracy. https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/social-civic-institutional-trust-necessary-conditions-pluralistic-democracy
- Weave: The Social Fabric Project. Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/weave-the-social-fabric-initiative/
References
Arnstein, S. (1969.) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944366908977225
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust: Why trust is the ultimate determinate of success or failure in your relationships, career and life. Simon & Schuster.
Dietz, N (2024). Social Connectedness and Generosity: A Look at How Associational Life and Social Connections Influence Volunteering and Giving (And Vice Versa). University of Maryland School of Public Policy, Do Good Institute. https://dogood.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/social-connectedness-and-generosity-look-how-associational-life-and
Hoelting, J (2022). Building Trust in Communities. University of Minnesota Extension. https://extension.umn.edu/vital-connections/building-trust-communities
Edelman Trust Barometer. (2021). Edelman. https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer
Eskridge, R., & Key, E. (2016). Elements of Trust in Municipal Government. https://www.appstate.edu/~keyem/Eskridge_and_Key.pdf
Goldsmith, S. (2022). How To Rebuild Trust in Local Government Before It’s Too Late. https://datasmart.hks.harvard.edu/how-rebuild-trust-local-government-it%E2%80%99s-too-late
2023 State of Local Government Leadership Pipeline (2023). Government Leadership Solutions. https://governmentleadershipsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Final-Executive-Summary-051923-1.pdf
Haliburton, T. C. (1844). The Attaché (Vol. 1). Richard Bentley. https://archive.org/details/attacheorsamsli01hali/page/n3/mode/2up
Horntvedt, J. (2012). 'Social Capital' Makes Communities Better Places to Live. https://extension.umn.edu/expanding-community-involvement/social-capital-makes-communities-better-places-live
Local Solutions for Local Problems. (2013). World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/07/03/Local-Solutions-for-Local-Problems
Mallory, B. (2024). Social, Civic, and Institutional Trust: Necessary Conditions for a Pluralistic Democracy. https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/social-civic-institutional-trust-necessary-conditions-pluralistic-democracy
Maskell, P. (2000). Social Capital and Competitiveness. In S. Baron, J. Field, and T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives. (pp. 111-123) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Melkers, Julia, and John Clayton Thomas. 1998. What Do Administrators Think Citizens Think? Administrator Predictions as an Adjunct to Citizen Surveys. Public Administration Re-view 58(4): 327–34.
Yang, K. (2005). Public Administrators’ Trust in Citizens: A Missing Link in Citizen Involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00453.x
