Improving Government Trust through Communication

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

By Michael R. Ford
September 21, 2025

Trust is the lifeblood of a functioning democracy. When citizens lose trust in their democratic governing institutions, they are losing trust in one another’s ability to self-govern. Trust is difficult to gain and very easy to lose, but without it governments cannot adequately serve their constituencies. Just like in one’s personal relationships, the key to trust in government is communication.

The default approach to communication in most large complex organizations, including government, is centralization. An individual or team seeks to control the message and the flow of information, often by setting up rules for communicating with the press, standard templates for communicating with stakeholders, and the direct management of social media accounts. The need for this approach is understandable; it allows organizations to communicate official positions, ensures organizational leadership is in the loop on all communications and prevents the confusion caused by multiple members of an organization sharing conflicting information.

For example, if there is a snowstorm and you want to know if the school district is open, you do not want the district central office telling you there is a snow day and your child’s principal reporting the school is open. While a silly example, it is indicative of the type of communication that is conducive to centralization. Unfortunately, public organizations can get so focused on message control they neglect the value of building a culture of good communication throughout the organization. In other words, process can become more important than purpose to the detriment of the goals of the organization.

How does a public organization build a culture of good communication? It begins by accepting the base premise that every government communication either builds public trust or erodes it. Think of a utility bill, for example. Is it clear and understandable? Or is it full of jargon? If clear and understandable you will have a more positive view of the entity sending the bill (even if you are not thrilled about paying it). If it is full of jargon that you cannot comprehend, you will likely lose trust in the entity sending it. You might not trust the numbers because you cannot understand them. Or you might lose trust in the entity itself because they did not take the time to explain what you were paying for in a format you can understand.

Examples of government communication can look very different, but they are all relevant and they all impact trust. It might be an interaction with a police officer. What that officer says to you and how you leave the interaction impacts your trust in the police department. The speed at which a teacher responds to your email regarding your child’s progress impacts your trust in the school district. The format of a municipal budget or the clarity of public documents in a public meeting agenda all build or erode public trust. Every single interaction between a public organization and the public matters.

Complicating things further, the decision not to communicate on any given issue is also an action that can erode public trust. One of the most common complaints I have received in my years of local government service is from constituents upset they have not been notified of a project/issue/vote. Sometimes there was a communication, but the chosen format was the problem. Other times there really was no communication. In either case, it feeds the perception that the public organization was not being transparent and did not respect the public enough to communicate in a manner that was understood.

Unfortunately, a centralized communication operation, whether an individual or a team, cannot unilaterally create a culture of good communication. It takes leadership willing to cede control over communications by setting broad guidelines, creating strong internal communication structures, and trusting employees at all levels within the organization to communicate in an accurate and responsible manner. Ceding control comes with risk. It is inevitable that some employees will communicate something in a manner that does not reflect the values and goals of the organization. But honestly, that occurs even in situations where communications are centralized, so it is a risk that is overblown. Further, the potential increases in morale from creating a culture where employees are trusted to communicate in their areas of expertise is worth the potential risk.

It is challenging if not impossible to combat the declining trust in government if we continue to communicate with the public using an outdated model. Information moves at a pace that is inconsistent with centralization and control of all information flows. The public organizations that modernize their communications culture will be the ones quickest to build public trust.

---

Author: Michael R. Ford is the Director of the Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue at the Universities of Wisconsin. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and education policy. He is an elected member of the Oshkosh Area School District Board.

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