INSIGHT BRIEF SERIES

Trust-Building Strategies for Economic Developers: Lessons from Tacoma, Cleveland, and Buffalo

Written By Mari Kate Mycek, PhD

Table of Contents

Since 1958, The Pew Research Center asked United States (US) residents about their trust in the federal government, recognizing that trust is needed for governments to run effectively and stably.  According to their data, trust in the federal government has steadily declined over time. However, while the federal government grappled with declining public trust, the National Research Center reported a rise in trust toward local and state governments—institutions that, some argue, have a greater impact on citizens’ daily lives. Very importantly, the increase is an average, and it becomes abundantly clear that certain demographic groups – those with higher incomes and higher educational attainment, as well as white and Asian Americans – trust their local governments more. This isn’t surprising given U.S. history and the government’s intentional and explicit policies and practices that harm communities of color. After all, there isn’t a lot of historical evidence to support that they should.  

Nevertheless, there are passionate local leaders in Small and Midsized Cities (SMCs) throughout the U.S. that are looking for ways to repair past harms and build trust with historically excluded communities so that their programs and projects directly benefit those communities, rather than harm or displace them. How are they doing it? What is working? And why is it important for us to continue trying to build trust? This insight piece highlights some of the ways local government leaders are working to build trust and expand economic opportunity to usher in new and lasting changes in their communities, and ways for others to think about how to incorporate these practices and principles into their own community.  

Proven Strategies for Economic Developers

There has been a growing amount of research and programs aimed at increasing trust between local governments and citizens over the last decade, and a variety of approaches that stand out as both commonly used and potentially highly effective. Below are two examples of specific programs – participatory budgeting and community benefits agreements – that Small and Midsized Cities use to build trust with a lot of evidence demonstrating they can be effective when done intentionally and with the community at the center.  

Participatory Budgeting

Participatory budgeting is a democratic process that invites community members to decide how public money is spent. The process generally involves community members proposing projects, community dialogue, and voting on proposed initiatives. The process can increase transparency, accountability, and an ability for community members to shape local priorities. 

  • This approach can be adopted by any size SMC because of its adaptability and exceptional resources for implementation. Whether it’s $1,000 or $3 million, a local government can increase trust and transparency by including participation in budget decisions in this democratic manner. It also doesn’t need to be used in a specific department or for a specific type of project to be effective. There are a lot of resources and technical assistance programs so that SMC leaders don’t have to start from scratch and can get the support they need to try it out at any scale. 

  • A key challenge for SMC leaders with this approach may be garnering broad, inclusive participation, especially if citizens feel especially distrustful or disenfranchised. Knowing that some people (those with higher incomes and who are white) on average have higher trust in the government, explicit invitations and outreach should be done to communities that may not feel welcome or comfortable engaging in the participatory budgeting process. There is also a fair amount of administrative logistics and labor associated with the process that someone needs to manage, especially when making the process as accessible as possible. To maintain any trust built through this process, it needs to be a long-term strategy (hopefully one that grows with time), so sustainability can be a challenge if it’s not institutionalized and made a priority. Consider engaging a trusted messenger by contracting with a local leader or community-based organization to help do outreach on the city’s behalf. 

    • Participatory Budgeting Project Scoping Toolkit: A Guide for Officials & Staff Interested in Starting PB  

    • This toolkit is designed to help smaller units of general local government (UGLGs), and their nonprofit partners learn about participatory budgeting (PB) and how to deploy it in their communities. 

Community Benefits Agreement (CBA)

Somewhat like participatory budgeting, community benefits agreements have been used for decades, so there is a lot of information available to help communities create their own. Early CBAs were often informal, but today they are a more formalized tool, often legally binding, to ensure that redevelopment projects and investments provide tangible benefits to surrounding neighborhoods and communities affected by those developments. They often include specific items that developers need to include in development plans, including local hiring commitments, environmental protections, community services, affordable housing, and accountability to the community through transparent reporting and communication. 

  • CBAs are most useful for specific projects and redevelopment areas, especially when those projects are in areas in which people are at risk of displacement and gentrification without intentional safeguards. Communities that already have strong community development organizations and organized citizens will likely have an easier time mobilizing to negotiate CBAs with the local government and developers, though this is not a requirement. Those without that level of engagement will need to build in more time to create this civic infrastructure. This means identify trusted leaders in community; develop trust-based relationships; understand community needs, desires, and challenges; and design and negotiate CBAs with investors and developers.  

  • Negotiating power imbalances during the CBA process can be a challenge, given developers are often well resourced while community groups are often under-resourced and can struggle with sufficient capacity. Local governments need to play a pivotal role in this process as the entity that levels the playing field by creating explicit guidelines and requirements for developers. By providing that mediating role between developers and community members, local government leaders can contribute to the trust building process and should be the agent of accountability – ensuring the CBA is enforced. Specific metrics and measures are incredibly important in ensuring accountability. For example, setting a minimum wage for all new jobs that adheres to living wage standards for the area and region. 

These specific programs and implementation efforts have clear roadmaps and procedures that have been developed and tested. While they need to be adapted to suit your communities’ specific needs, there are many reports, toolkits, and technical assistance providers that can help. If these specific programs don’t align with your needs, capacity, or capital that does not mean that there aren’t other avenues in which you can begin to strengthen or build trust with community members.  

Trust Building in Action – Cities Prioritizing Inclusive Growth Strategies 

Whether it be a specific participatory budgeting program, community benefits agreement, or other programs and tactics – every SMC will need to tailor it differently based on their capacity, capital, and community needs. The examples below highlight how different cities have worked to build trust in their own communities, by adapting these strategies in ways that make the most sense for them.  

Case Study: Buffalo, NY

Buffalo, NY (population 274,678) has a specific division – the Division of Citizen Services – aimed at establishing and maintaining better communication and trust with their community members. Their services include operating a 311 hotline in which citizens can call in with feedback, community programs aimed at placemaking and safety, and a variety of services and programs to bring community members into the inner workings of the local government to provide insight and feedback and gain workforce skills.

Some unique aspects of Buffalo’s division of citizen services can help illustrate exactly how SMC leaders can put trust-building best practices into action.  

  • Programs like the Participation Academy and the Urban Fellows Internship Program that invite and encourage citizens to learn and get involved in their local government, through on-site classes and opportunities to have conversations with leaders and build careers in local government.  

  • Making city information publicly available via an accessible open data portal that includes metrics for each department, interactive maps, and “data stories” to help residents understand the data they are seeing. Research supports this approach. When local governments share performance information, maintain websites, etc., trust in local governments increases.  

  • Working directly with community-based organizations to develop programming and supporting the creation and sustainability of neighborhood block clubs so that citizens are engaged throughout any placemaking or safety initiative that comes out of their 311 calls data. 

Case Study: Cleveland, OH

SMC leaders can learn a lot from The City of Cleveland (population 362,656) in terms of inclusive economic growth. Evergreen Cooperatives, and their employee ownership initiative focused on long term community development and inclusion, has received national recognition. The government itself started using CBAs in the early 2010s. What is unique about their approach today is how they have integrated the CBA process systemically into their local government operating systems through the CBA ordinance, even signing an MOU in 2024 to make it more visible and concrete. System change is a means of creating lasting, sustainable, inclusive change. Cleveland’s Community Benefits Ordinance is an example of how SMC leaders can work to build trust and open communication in the development process systemically and institutionally

Some unique aspects of Cleveland’s community benefits ordinance help illustrate exactly how SMC leaders can put trust-building best practices into action.  

  • The CBA ordinance requires developers to meet with members of the community to ask for their feedback. The developer must submit contracting, workforce data, and all other community benefits compliance data to Cleveland’s office of Equal Opportunity, which is then shared quarterly through a public data dashboard. Projects going through the process and the CBA requirements are listed by development project here. 

  • Community input is gathered through a variety of channels including community meetings, surveys (both online and over the phone), strategic committees, and partnerships with community organizations.  

Case Study: Tacoma, WA

Tacoma, Washington (population 222,906) has demonstrated its commitment to inclusive economic growth through the creation  of the Tacoma Equity Index – an online interactive mapping tool that visually highlights areas of Tacoma where residents have opportunity. The mapping tool is used to prioritize investments and has been celebrated for its innovative use of data in an equitable way. In 2024, Tacoma released a series of Case Studies showing, “how staff and community partners utilize Tacoma’s Equity Index to make intentional, data-informed decisions that lead to more equitable outcomes in our community.” This report shows accountability in action.  

Some unique aspects of Tacoma’s trust accountability efforts help illustrate exactly how SMC leaders can put trust-building best practices into action. 

  • By showing and sharing the direct impact of a program intended to build open communication and trust-building in government spending, the collection of case studies is a valuable resource for staff and policymakers to understand impact and to spark further and reiterative dialogue on what is working and isn’t for community members.  

  • Using the Equity Index data, the City of Tacoma realized that in neighborhoods with low digital equity, they needed to be very intentional and ensure community engagement and outreach was not done on the internet. While providing opportunities for community comment via online surveys or online databases can be effective for many communities, Tacoma leaders intentionally recognized these neighborhoods would have a difficult, if not impossible, time doing the same. Not only did the digital equity metric of the Equity Index provide opportunities to build new digital equity programs, but it also allowed city officials to ensure that their communication and outreach efforts were intentionally tailored for different community members. The city uses physical communication and in-person community engagement opportunities in these areas, as well as working with public libraries to increase outreach. 

  • The Tacoma Creates program (page 25) outlines the explicit steps taken by government staff throughout the entire process from the spark of the idea, “how can we equitably increase access to arts, culture, heritage, and science experiences throughout Tacoma, especially for underserved youth?” to how they collected community feedback on the question, and how the money for the program was ultimately spent. Transparency throughout the development and implementation process provides accountability to community members to see how government spending happens and how their voices are a part of it in Tacoma.  

Final Thoughts and Guiding Principles 

Beyond the specific program and examples above, there is still a lot that can be done to increase trust in local governments. The guiding principles outlined below are less formulaic but can be very impactful if done effectively. They focus on high-level efforts and general ways of operating across the local development process to increase trust and transparency, with whatever capacity you have available right now. 

Inclusive Public Meetings  

Most, if not all, local governments have public meetings, especially when new developments and programs are being considered for adoption. Public meetings are a valuable tool for sharing information and receiving public input. I have been to many local government public meetings that have no community members present or have many community members present but their voices are not given space or true consideration. Public meetings alone, done as a means of checking a box, can create more distrust between governments and citizens than trust. These tactics can help make public meetings more accessible and inclusive and create more trust between governments and those they serve.  

    • Create a regularly updated online space for documents related to developments and projects under consideration that uses plain language and is formatted to be read easily on a smartphone 

    • Share budget information and how money is being spent in the community, including procurement policies and any efforts to diversify or localize public spending. 

    • Create citizen advisory boards and/or allow community members to comment on specific documents through an easy-to-access and submit format. 

Transparency and Open Communication

There are many ways to increase transparency and open communication to build trust with community members outside of public meetings. A lot can happen between one meeting and the next, especially during negotiations for a development project. Rather than share all information only at public meetings in which people must absorb information on the spot and react in real time, share information often and accessibly. 

    • Host public meetings in accessible locations rather than local government buildings (i.e., community centers, libraries, schools) and include remote options via Zoom or live streaming. Ask a trusted community organization to host the meeting at their offices or to co-host the meeting.  

    • Provide childcare, food, and transportation assistance to those who might need it, and make the process of requesting these services easy to understand, navigate, and receive. Offer language interpretation and translation for non-English speaking residents.  

    • Intentionally invite community members by sharing flyers and word-of-mouth invitations at places where they already gather (i.e., libraries, community centers, places of worship, parks). 

    • Don’t just talk at people who attend, use engagement tools like small group discussions and live polling to gather real time feedback. When possible, ask a community member who is directly affected by the topic being discussed to speak and lead the discussion. 

Accountability Mechanisms

All the public meetings and open communication with community members will do little to build trust without accountability mechanisms in place. Trust cannot be built, and will continue to deteriorate, if community members feel they are being asked to give their opinion and concerns and then those concerns are not taken seriously.  

These ideas are a great starting point in building trust and should be adapted to the circumstances of your own community. Whether it’s through the creation of a new program, or a minor change within an existing program, we hope that the implementation of these strategies will lead to more equitable and inclusive Small and Midsized Cities filled with economic opportunity.  

    • Thoughtfully analyze and summarize the feedback you receive, ensuring anonymity, and publish the feedback widely so the community can see what is being suggested. Ask for further feedback on the topics you identified through this process as common and pressing concerns. Allowing for reiterative feedback can help create further engagement and show you are listening. 

    • Share openly and widely, through written and verbal channels, exactly what you are doing in response to community feedback. Share any constraints faced in implementing feedback, clearly identifying how and why each action is being implemented in response to the community’s needs.  

    • Create penalties and consequences when developers or city departments do not comply with strategies put in place to increase inclusion and equity in programs, policies, and development projects.