Preventing False Hopes (Why Public Engagement May Not Build Trust)

Because trust requires at least two parties (the trustor and the trustee), it is inherently social. Within that relationship, people tend to trust those they get to know and perceive as being like them (e.g., sharing their values) and as being trustworthy.

This feature of trust suggests that engagement may not lead to trust in the courts unless it leads to people getting to know the courts (or those acting in various roles within the courts), and increasing their perceptions that the court actors are “like them,” and are trustworthy (e.g., caring, competent, and having integrity).

During engagement processes (e.g., during planning, implementing, and follow-up), it is worth considering the following questions:

How can the courts ensure or increase the likelihood that diverse members of the public

• get to know the courts and the actors within the courts?
• become aware of commonalities between themselves or the values they hold and the courts hold?
• increase their perceptions of court trustworthiness?

Strategies and pilot team examples

Some strategies that courts participating in the public engagement pilot projects used included:

• Involving community leaders and stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the engagements which provided increased contact between the community and the courts before, during and after the engagement (e.g., see how Kansas City, Missouri involved its partners )
• Meeting with community groups to discuss and even co-create goals for their engagements (e.g., see how Puerto Rico initially engaged with the Alianza group)
• Being willing to engage with the public and commit to building trust through custom-built trustworthiness

Trust can have different bases, such as when it is based on a belief that an institution consistently performs in certain ways (e.g., fair, productive) or a belief that the institution is good or moral. When trust is based on performance information, that performance occurs in a specific context, and must be observed over time to see if it will be consistent.

This feature of trust suggests that a one-time engagement will not provide participants with enough information to build long-lasting or deep trust. Even if the engagement is positive, one experience will not provide enough information for participants to know if the courts will consistently engage with them positively over repeated experiences. Further, an engagement only shows the courts are trustworthy within one specific context.

During engagement processes (e.g., during planning, implementing, and follow-up), it may be useful to consider the following questions:

• How can the courts repeatedly exhibit their trustworthiness?
• How can the courts exhibit their trustworthiness across different contexts?

Strategies and pilot team examples

Some strategies that courts participating in the public engagement pilot projects used included:

• Repeated meetings with the same community leaders and groups over time (e.g., see how Massachusetts structured engagements with its stakeholders over time)
• Showing that the engagements led to concrete outcomes so that people see the courts acting trustworthy both during the engagements and afterwards.

In addition to trust being context-specific, some researchers and theorists have noted that distrust can have different causes. For example, some people’s distrust may be motivated by perceptions of incompetence, and others’ distrust may be motivated by perceptions of unfairness.

There’s no single solution that will remedy all forms of distrust, and only some forms may be helped by engagement. For example, when it comes to perceived unfairness, it may be possible to engage the public to learn more about the unfairness, how it is experienced and its impacts, and identify or seek feedback on solutions for making the system more fair. When it comes to incompetence, however, it may make more sense to increase competence by involving more experts in the problem-solving and decision-making process.

During engagement processes (e.g., during planning, implementing, and follow-up), it may be useful to consider the following questions:

• What are the reasons for distrust of the courts among the specific groups of people your court may wish to engage?
• What forms of engagement are most likely to help address those specific forms of distrust?
• Are other processes needed to ensure the causes of distrust are remedied?

Strategies and pilot team examples

Some strategies that courts participating in the public engagement pilot projects used included:

• Use  of listening sessions with specific previously excluded groups, to better understand their specific forms of distrust (e.g., see how Nebraska conducted listening sessions with Native Americans across the state)
• Use of problem-solving to address specific issues of distrust (e.g., see how Franklin County, Ohio involved faith-based groups around improving specialized docket programs)
• Following through and explicitly building specific forms of trustworthiness in light of specific forms of distrust.

Another issue related to building of trust pertains to “blind trust” versus “critical trust.” Blind trust implies acting without much knowledge or correction of one’s trusting beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Critical trust implies being aware of when trust is or is not warranted, trusting when appropriate, and updating one’s levels of trust in light of evidence of trustworthiness or dis-trustworthiness. While high levels of distrust can be destructive to institutions, democratic processes still require people who competently question policies and processes rather than people who only blindly trust.[1]

Engagement processes that seek only to reassure people without encouraging and answering their questions are less likely to build a critically trusting public. Thus, during engagement processes (e.g., during planning, implementing, and follow-up), it may be useful to consider the following questions:

• How can you encourage different groups to share their questions?
• What questions does a critically questioning public need to have answered?

How can you facilitate finding answers to such questions?

Strategies and pilot team examples

Some strategies that courts participating in the public engagement pilot projects used included:

• Hiring facilitators that would be trusted by specific groups and could encourage open sharing (e.g., Nebraska’s use of facilitators that were part of the courts and Native American community)
• Bringing together both affected persons and experts who could provide critical information about specific issues pertaining a problem (e.g., Massachusetts’ panel discussion around opioids)

[1] Petts, J. (2008). Public engagement to build trust: False hopes? Journal of Risk Research, 11(6), 821-835.