Increasing Compliance and Trust in Local Government

Background on Compliance and Trust in Local Government

Public trust in the federal government is at historic lows. According to Pew Research Center, only 17% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right most of the time. In seven decades of tracking, it’s one of the lowest readings.

Americans view federal and local government differently. Gallup’s 2025 Governance Survey revealed that 65% of Americans trust their local government to handle community problems. In fact, trust at the local level has consistently outperformed state and federal since the 2000s.

A 65% trust rating still means 35% of residents aren’t convinced. According to the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, just 41% of Americans trust government as an institution—and that includes local government. When residents can’t see how decisions are made or dollars are spent, skepticism fills the gap.

In local government, your compliance practices and community trust are inextricably linked. This article breaks down why compliance and transparency matter, where local governments typically fall short, and practical approaches for strengthening both.

Why Compliance and Trust Are Linked

Trust is earned through demonstrated accountability. Residents trust agencies that can “show their work” via clear audit trails, accessible records, and decisions that are explainable. When people can’t verify what their government is doing, they tend to assume the worst.

The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has long argued that transparency builds credibility. Residents trust leaders who are forthcoming and distrust those who aren’t, despite no evidence of wrongdoing. Even the perception of secrecy is enough to erode confidence. Case in point: the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer showed that only 40% of US citizens trust government leaders to do what is right.

The trust equation looks different at the local level. Residents interact with local government directly (e.g. housing, roads, permits, and public safety), which explains why local trust is consistently higher than federal and state. Proximity is an advantage. But it also means gaps in compliance or communication are felt more immediately and personally.

The Risk of Poor Compliance and Low Transparency

Erosion of Resident Trust

More than a third of Americans don’t fully trust their local government. Gaps in compliance or unclear reporting create legal exposure while confirming what the skeptics already suspect.

Residents interact directly with their local government, so grievances feel more personal. A public records request that’s never answered can start the erosion process. And once it’s lost, trust is difficult to rebuild.

Regulatory and Financial Exposure

Compliance requirements are growing, not shrinking. The Financial Data Transparency Act introduces new federal reporting standards that GFOA estimates could cost the sector more than $1.5 billion within two years of final rulemaking. Many agencies will need government compliance software, systems reconfiguration, or a combination of the two.

Agencies already behind on government transparency practices will find this transition harder and more expensive. Those with modern systems and clean data will be better positioned to absorb the change.

The Discretionary Gap

According to research comparing local governments internationally, transparency is strongest in regulated areas like procurement, external audit, and financial reporting. It’s weaker where it’s discretionary, like publishing performance metrics or explaining how spending decisions were made. The areas agencies choose not to disclose often become the ones residents question most.

Documentation Under Pressure

Without clear documentation, agencies struggle to respond to audits, public records requests, or council questions. What should be routine turns into a credibility crisis.

By treating documentation as an ongoing process, instead of a scramble, your agency can stand up under scrutiny.

Where Compliance Typically Breaks Down

Local government compliance failures rarely happen all at once. They accumulate through small gaps that go unaddressed until they become visible problems.

Budget and procurement records are often published in formats that technically satisfy disclosure requirements but aren’t accessible. Examples include buried PDFs, inconsistent naming conventions, or documents that require a FOIA request to obtain.

When audit findings aren’t tracked to resolution, they don’t just go away. An unresolved finding from a prior year may resurface in the next audit, highlighting an issue with your internal controls.

Manual, paper-based processes slow down public records requests, create backlogs, and leave room for error.

When departments run on disconnected systems, no one has a complete view of the agency’s compliance practices. Data silos make reporting slow, inconsistent, and difficult to verify.

Outdated financial reporting on public-facing websites sends a clear message to residents: their access to information isn’t a priority.

When there’s no structured channel for whistleblower reports or citizen complaints, problems that could be caught early tend to surface through a crisis instead.

Best Practices For Building Compliance and Trust

1. Start With the Fundamentals

Before layering on new initiatives, make sure the basics are in place. That includes clear statutory disclosure commitments, functioning internal financial controls, and regular audits conducted on schedule.

Everything else depends on these foundational elements. Agencies that skip ahead without the fundamentals in place often find issues arising at the worst possible moments—during budget reviews, audit cycles, or public records requests.

2. Publish Financial Data Proactively

According to GFOA, a government’s website is one of your most effective tools for building public trust. Many residents only discover that financial information exists because they find it online. What you publish, and how easily it can be found, shapes perception of your agency’s openness.

Publishing budgets, audits, and procurement data in machine-readable formats, proactively, shows your commitment to public sector transparency—instead of being forced to comply.

3. Track Audit Findings to Resolution

For local government audit compliance to mean anything, findings have to be resolved, not just documented. Regulated areas like external audits tend to be documented well. The follow-through is where agencies fall short, and that’s what actually builds trust.

Publicly sharing what happened after an audit finding demonstrates real accountability, whether a control was corrected, a process was updated, or a staff member was retrained. Residents and oversight bodies notice the difference between agencies that treat audits as compliance exercises and those that treat them as improvement tools.

4. Go Beyond Minimum Compliance

Legal disclosure requirements set a floor, not a standard. Most municipalities fall short in discretionary areas like performance reporting and plain-language budget summaries, which is what residents tend to notice the most. Translating technical financial data into something residents can actually understand does more for trust than checking compliance boxes alone.

5. Empower Residents and Staff to Flag Problems

Problems caught early are easier to resolve than those that surface through a news story or public records request. Whistleblower protections and formal complaint channels give staff and residents a safe path to raise concerns internally—before they escalate. By building these processes proactively, your agency can handle most issues quietly.

6. Choose a Small Set of Trackable Metrics

Publishing volumes of raw data doesn’t build trust, but clarity does. Identify a handful of outcome-based metrics that matter to residents, publish them consistently, and review them publicly on a regular schedule. This keeps both staff and residents focused on whether things are actually improving, rather than whether the reporting box got checked.

FAQs

What’s the difference between compliance and transparency in local government?

Compliance refers to meeting legal, financial, and regulatory requirements, such as audits, disclosure laws, and reporting standards. Transparency is the practice of proactively making that information accessible and understandable to residents, going beyond the legal minimum.

What is the Financial Data Transparency Act (FDTA) and how does it affect local governments?

The FDTA is a federal rule that standardizes how state and local governments report financial data. GFOA estimates compliance could cost the public sector over $1.5 billion within two years of the final ruling. Many agencies will need government transparency software or system upgrades to meet the new reporting standards.

How quickly can a local government improve transparency?

Faster than most agencies expect. A small city can typically publish a basic budget summary, procurement notices, and a public complaints form within about 90 days using its existing resources.

What software helps local governments manage compliance and transparency?

Financial and reporting platforms built for public administration centralize budgeting, procurement, and audit data into a single accessible system. This type of public sector compliance software reduces department silos and reliance on manual, paper-based processes.

Why doesn’t transparency alone guarantee public trust?

Because residents don’t rely solely on data when deciding whether to trust your agency. Transparency has to be paired with clear communication and context. Otherwise data can be misunderstood or fail to resonate with the people it’s meant to reach.

Closing the Trust Gap

Sixty-five percent of Americans trust their local government to handle local problems, compared to just 17% who say the same about the federal government. That’s a meaningful advantage, but it doesn’t sustain itself.

Every unexplained decision, delayed records request, or hard-to-understand budget chips away at that goodwill. Trust erodes in the space between what residents expect and what they can verify.

Closing that gap doesn’t require a massive overhaul. It starts with the fundamentals like statutory disclosure, basic financial controls, and audit follow-through. From there, you build toward proactive publication and easy-to-understand compliance communication. By treating transparency as an ongoing practice, your agency can protect its hard-earned trust.

Want to see how hero-grade finance tools help you improve local government accountability? CentralSquare’s finance software for local government gives your agency a single source of record that streamlines audit preparation, with Level 1 PCI compliance built into every payment channel.

View Finance Software for Local Government