11 minutes
Trust is a record, not a feeling When a community approaches a state program slowly, that is usually accurate memory rather than a communications failure. What earned the distrust, and what changes it.
What you’ll be able to do Explain community distrust of public systems as a reasonable response to a documented record, and name what an institution has to do, rather than say, for that to change. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What is the most useful next step? Document a next step for Trust is a record, not a feeling: Find one commitment your program made to a community group in the past year. Check whether anyone reported back on what happened to it. If nobody did, do it now, however late, and say plainly that it is late. Distrust as accurate memory Public agencies tend to treat distrust as a perception problem, which makes it a communications assignment: better materials, more outreach, a clearer message. That framing is comfortable and usually wrong. Distrust of public systems is most often an accurate summary of what those systems did, held by people who were there or who were raised by people who were.
Disability history supplies plenty of it. People were removed from their families and communities and placed far away. Procedures were carried out on institutionalized people without meaningful consent, and research was conducted on populations that could not refuse. Families were told that placement was temporary when it was not. Information given to one part of government to obtain help appeared later in a decision about custody, immigration, benefits or criminal charges. None of this is disputed history, and none of it requires anyone currently employed to have done anything wrong for its effects to persist.
The administrative consequence is specific. People who have learned that giving information to a public system is risky will give less of it, later, and through someone they already trust. That looks like disengagement in your participation data. It is actually a rational response to a documented record, and it will not be moved by a better flyer.
Four things public institutions did that people remember Removal and separation Children and adults were taken from families and communities and placed at a distance, frequently permanently, frequently on an official's judgment. Families lost contact and were told it was better that way. Communities that experienced this at scale remember it as policy, because it was.
Procedures and research without meaningful consent Institutionalized people were subject to procedures and studies they could not refuse, under laws and practices that treated their consent as unnecessary. Public health and medical research in the United States has a documented record of using people who lacked the standing to say no, and that record circulates in affected communities far more accurately than most agencies assume.
Information collected to help, used for something else A family gives information to obtain a service. It later surfaces in an eligibility decision, a custody matter, an enforcement action or an immigration process. Once that has happened to someone a person knows, every subsequent request for information carries a cost that the form does not mention.
Engagement that asked and never answered This is the one still being made now. A program runs sessions, collects input, thanks people, and is never heard from again. Each round teaches the community that participating costs time and returns nothing, which is a lesson they apply the next time an agency arrives with a survey.
Where this conversation tends to sit, and where it can move Denial Polarization Minimization Acceptance and adaptation
The history is simply not present. “I have never heard anything about that here.” Nothing in the design changes, because nothing is visible to change. The usual remedy is exposure to the record itself rather than argument.
Two shapes, same distance. Defensive: “that was a different agency and I wasn't there.” Or judging: “the people who did that were monsters, and we are nothing like them.” Both keep the record at arm's length and neither reaches the arrangements still in service.
Where public agencies most often sit, and where this module is aimed. “That was a long time ago.” “We treat everyone the same.” “People just need better information.” Fairness is defined as uniform treatment, so an inherited arrangement looks neutral and goes unexamined. It is a decent instinct producing an inaccurate result.
The record is allowed to stand as fact without needing to be about anyone personally, and then the design changes: who is asked first, what is paid for, which requirement is removed, what gets reported back and by when. These stages describe conversations and designs. They are not a label, a score or a record about any individual, and nothing here is assessed or kept about you.
You are the fourth group from the state to ask us this question. I can tell you what we said the first three times. What I cannot tell you is what any of you did with it.
Composite community advisor perspective, illustrative Open with the last ask, not the new one What you can change You control what the first slide says. It can introduce your project, or it can account for the previous one.
What to watch for Do not open a new engagement without saying what happened to the last round of input. If the answer is that nothing happened, say that. People already know, and pretending otherwise costs more than the admission.
Your next step Before your next community meeting, find the previous round of input, write one honest paragraph about what came of it, and lead with that.
Private reflection, kept by you: think of a time you were asked for input by an organization that never told you what happened to it. What did you conclude, and what would have changed your mind? Nothing you write here is collected or seen by anyone.
Carry this forward Distrust is information. When engagement is slow, the first question is what this system has done to these people or to people like them, not why they are disengaged.
The record includes removal from families and communities, procedures and research carried out without meaningful consent, promises made in engagement and not kept, and information collected to help someone and later used against them.
Trust responds to repeated, verifiable behavior: keeping small promises, reporting back what changed, correcting harm when it happens, and paying people for their expertise.
Minimization is where this work most often stalls. “That was then”, “we treat everyone the same”, and “I wasn't there” are all true statements that leave the design untouched.
A scenario about three listening sessions almost nobody attended, an accordion on four things public institutions did that people remember, tabbed descriptions of the stages this conversation moves through, a composite community perspective, and a knowledge check on what actually changes a relationship.
Find one commitment your program made to a community group in the past year. Check whether anyone reported back on what happened to it. If nobody did, do it now, however late, and say plainly that it is late.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Carry this into practice Four lessons on what public disability systems were first built to do, how ableism and racial inequity worked together inside them, why distrust is an accurate memory rather than a communications problem.
Return to the experience: What did you notice or try, whose perspective informed it, and what would you keep or adjust?
Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
