The difference between what governments say and do has eroded community trust, an expert tells GN.
“There seems to be a credibility gap between government rhetoric and action,” says Mark Duckworth – senior research fellow at Deakin University. “Communities and individuals spot this gap and that means the trust erodes.”
But trust flows both ways, says Duckworth. “Trust is reciprocal. Trust is built on one party trusting another party and that trust being returned.”
Duckworth – who has more than 30 years’ experience in the Victorian and New South Wales public sector leading policy and legislative reform initiatives – is lead researcher of the Trust Flows project, established to examine the role trust plays between governments and communities.
“One of the reasons for declining trust is not just that communities are trusting governments less but that, frequently, government officials are not trusting communities and communities are aware of that lack of trust and that makes a trusting relationship difficult to build and sustain,” says Duckworth.
In a research report – Do governments trust communities? – Duckworth and his team analyse the role trust plays in the midst of major events such as natural disasters, health emergencies and security threats. “We explored the issues around trust and how government officials and communities saw each other,” says Duckworth.
Through in-depth interviews with current and former government officials and community leaders, the researchers discovered that interpersonal relationships emerged as key to trust building. And those relationships must be ongoing, says Duckworth.
“In times of crisis governments will invest in community relationships because they need to work with communities, but when the crisis ends those relationships fade away. You really need to continue to invest in those relationships. If a relationship is seen to be on a transactional basis then it doesn’t seem to be a genuine relationship that people want to maintain.”
Duckworth tells GN government investment in building and maintaining trusted relationships with communities is insufficient. “It needs to be seen as a long-term thing – it’s something that can’t be switched on and off. You actually have to maintain it over time,” he says. “It’s very difficult to build those trusting relationships in times of crisis if you don’t have them in place already.”
The trust checklist
The report features a truth checklist that governments can use to ensure they’re adopting processes that build trust – guidelines that were followed by the federal government when it was developing its multicultural framework. “There are simple things that could be done that show government agencies are invested in building trust relationships,” says Duckworth.
As well as relationship building, other key processes include:
- building familiarity and awareness
- cultural awareness and competence
- communication
- collaboration
- reliability
- transparency
- empathy
- accountability.
While there needs to be proper accountability for how government funds are spent, Duckworth tells GN that, sometimes, the conditions are so explicit and onerous that it leaves little scope for the community group to take ownership of the program. “Communities can sometimes feel railroaded into decisions or processes which they haven’t agreed to. They end up delivering a government program, even though it’s called a community program,” he says.
As an interviewee notes in the report: “You’ve got to put in all this paperwork and absolutely acquit every single little thing, and it becomes overwhelming … The amount of oversight and everything that had to be done in all these ways – in ways that government wanted it, not necessarily in ways that the community wanted it – made it so much more difficult, so much more challenging.”
Duckworth tells GN: “There should be some discussion in government around how we can better design an approach that would lead to proper accountability but also give communities greater agency.”
“Codesign is often used as a fancy word for consultation,” he adds.
While conducting their interviews, the researchers heard community groups often felt seen as problems to be managed, not as partners in designing and delivering programs. “That means there is always a power relationship between the government which gives and the community that receives rather than a true partnership,” says Duckworth. “If you are empowering a community that means giving a community agency, and you can’t both control and give agency at the same time.”
Governments can build and improve trust by demonstrating – through actions – that they value community experience, and that community empowerment and agency is real. “Communities often feel things are being done to them, and not with them. Officials often assume they know what communities want and are not listening to them. When that happens that erodes trust,” says Duckworth.
The decline of community trust in government is becoming a serious issue, not only for Australia, but countries worldwide. “Around the world people are concerned about declining levels of trust and there has been a lot of focus on declining trust by individuals and communities in government and government institutions,” says Duckworth.
Both governments and communities would benefit if trust is restored. As another interviewee says: “The more trusting a society is, the more successful it is.”
Leave a Reply