GCF aims to build trust, belonging, accountability in Clark

We live in an increas­ing­ly con­tentious soci­ety. Peoples’ trust in pub­lic insti­tu­tions and lead­ers appears to erode the more we strug­gle to find com­mon ground.

It is in this chal­leng­ing con­text that the Greater Clark Foundation (GCF) launched in 2013 to act as a cat­a­lyst, con­nec­tor, and con­ven­er to cre­ate the con­di­tions in which all peo­ple in our com­mu­ni­ty can thrive.

Most Americans would agree that the pub­lic sec­tor should be respon­sive to its con­stituents, trans­par­ent in oper­a­tions, account­able for deliv­er­ing on promis­es, and held to the stan­dard of robust and objec­tive mea­sures. When these four char­ac­ter­is­tics – respon­sive­ness, trans­paren­cy, account­abil­i­ty, and objec­tiv­i­ty — are present, trust in pub­lic insti­tu­tions and lead­ers is high­er than when those char­ac­ter­is­tics are not present. The health of our pub­lic sec­tor and civic spaces is mea­sured by how well com­mu­ni­ties under­stand and use these levers to address pub­lic prob­lems. We call this our civic health.

Since GCF began, we have been con­duct­ing qual­i­ta­tive research, ask­ing peo­ple how they feel about civic life. The num­ber one issue we heard from our com­mu­ni­ty is the need for more trust in civic life. We hear con­sis­tent­ly that peo­ple love this com­mu­ni­ty but want to expe­ri­ence more trust in pub­lic lead­er­ship. A shared feel­ing of dis­con­nec­tion affects many facets of civic life. People describe ways they per­ceive a lack of trans­paren­cy in com­mu­ni­ty gov­er­nance or don’t trust elect­ed lead­ers. Residents describe a range of con­fus­ing incon­sis­ten­cies in their deal­ings with var­i­ous pub­lic agen­cies.  People describe indif­fer­ence or apa­thy about their needs and con­cerns. Residents say they want lead­ers to be open to their ideas, desires, and hopes. Even though tax dol­lars fund pub­lic ser­vices, there’s a sense that com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers do not have the right to ask about impor­tant infor­ma­tion from pub­lic institutions.

These dis­con­nect­ed expe­ri­ences make peo­ple feel a lack of account­abil­i­ty. To be clear, these are per­cep­tions offered by res­i­dents. When we talk with elect­ed lead­ers, they describe feel­ing that they’re very trans­par­ent. They say they feel account­able. They work hard and love their com­mu­ni­ty.  They believe pub­lic per­cep­tions that they are not account­able are mis­placed.  Given the sig­nif­i­cant chal­lenges of these diver­gent opin­ions about civic health, we must begin to think and act differently.

First and fore­most, we must start with an assump­tion of good intent. All our fates are inter­twined. Cynicism and indif­fer­ence must not rule the day.  Mutual account­abil­i­ty and respect between lead­ers and con­stituents are fun­da­men­tal to our community’s suc­cess — with­out it, there is no path to full par­tic­i­pa­tion for every­one in our com­mu­ni­ty. Building trust is a crit­i­cal link to civic health. Importantly, trust endures when it is built by peo­ple com­ing togeth­er and work­ing toward a com­mon goal and with shared purpose.

Lack of trust often shows up in small ways, such as when pub­lic offi­cials appear defen­sive when res­i­dents ask ques­tions or chal­lenge norms, or when lead­ers say a course of action isn’t viable with­out under­stand­ing or acknowl­edg­ing why an issue is con­sid­ered impor­tant by con­stituents.  Lack of trust can also man­i­fest when res­i­dents do not show up to pro­vide input when asked, crit­i­cize deci­sions, or make per­son­al attacks on leaders. 

Institutions some­times con­fuse solic­it­ing pub­lic input with engage­ment. Public com­ment is not the same as pub­lic engage­ment. Engagement requires the next essen­tial step of offer­ing a path for con­stituents to pro­vide con­tri­bu­tions to pub­lic life that have poten­tial to result in mean­ing­ful impact.

Public life must be root­ed in trust and account­abil­i­ty. The through­line of the Greater Clark Foundation’s work over the last decade has been to lis­ten, learn, and make delib­er­ate invest­ments in build­ing trust, belong­ing, and inclu­sion in our community.

As pub­lic life becomes more par­tic­i­pa­to­ry, strate­gic, and future-ori­ent­ed, com­mu­ni­ty res­i­dents will devel­op stronger con­fi­dence in their lead­ers. Community deci­sions will ben­e­fit from mean­ing­ful res­i­dent engage­ment. We have hope for the future, based on our decade of lis­ten­ing and invest­ing in civic health. We believe the Greater Clark region is a place where shared aspi­ra­tions con­tribute to robust civic health. As we learned from dream­ing and cre­at­ing Legacy Grove Park, when we work togeth­er to build some­thing new and real­ize our ambi­tions, the results are a wel­com­ing, inclu­sive com­mu­ni­ty for everyone.