Public Trust Is Built Long Before the Headlines
How Continuous Storytelling, Officer Visibility, and Leadership Access Shaped Public Understanding at the Atlanta Police Department
By Dave Huddleston
Public trust in policing is rarely built during a crisis. By the time a major incident occurs, most people have already formed an opinion about a department, its leadership, and its intentions. That belief is shaped by what they have seen and heard over time, not by a single press conference or statement issued under pressure.
My work with the Atlanta Police Department has reinforced a simple truth. If an agency wants to be understood when it matters most, it must be willing to explain itself consistently, clearly, and long before the spotlight turns harsh.
This paper outlines how ongoing storytelling about officers, transparent communication about training, and consistent access to leadership helped the department better explain its mission and one of its most scrutinized investments, the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center.
Telling the Story of the People Behind the Badge
One of the most effective ways to build trust is also one of the most overlooked. People need to know who their officers are and why they chose this profession.
At APD, we made a deliberate effort to tell stories about officers continuously. Not just during awards ceremonies or recruitment pushes, but as part of regular communication. These stories focused on why individuals became police officers, what drew them to public service, and how they view their role in the communities they serve.
This was not about creating heroes or glossing over the difficulty of the job. It was about humanizing an institution that many people only encounter through enforcement or headlines. When residents view officers as parents, neighbors, mentors, and professionals who have chosen a demanding career for specific reasons, it changes the tone of the conversation.
That familiarity matters later. When difficult issues arise, the public is more likely to listen if they already feel they understand the people involved.
Explaining Training as a Commitment, Not a Threat
The construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center became one of the most contentious public discussions surrounding the department. Early on, opponents labeled the site as “Cop City” and framed it as a militarized compound rather than a training facility.
The response could not be defensive or evasive. Silence would have allowed that label to harden into a perceived fact.
Instead, the focus was on explaining, repeatedly and plainly, what modern police and fire training actually requires. The public was walked through why scenario-based training matters, why de-escalation spaces matter, and why recruits and veteran officers alike need environments that allow them to train safely and realistically.
The message was consistent. Better training produces better outcomes. Better outcomes mean fewer mistakes, fewer injuries, and stronger accountability. Training is not about force. It is about preparation.
This explanation did not happen once. It happened across interviews, speeches, talking points, community conversations, and earned media. The repetition was intentional. Understanding takes time.
Leadership Visibility and the Importance of Access
A critical part of this effort was leadership availability. Darin Schierbaum made himself accessible to local, regional, and national media. He did not avoid difficult questions about the training center. He addressed them directly.
That mattered.
When leaders are willing to explain their position clearly and calmly, it signals confidence and transparency. It also allows nuance to enter the conversation. Complex projects cannot be understood through slogans or headlines alone. They require explanation from someone who owns the decision and is accountable for it.
Chief Schierbaum consistently framed the training center as a public safety investment for the entire city. He talked about officer wellness, community trust, and the responsibility to prepare officers for the situations they will face. Over time, that message reached audiences who had only heard the opposition framing.
Access does not guarantee agreement. But it does ensure the public hears the full rationale instead of a single narrative.
The Role of Continuous Communication
One of the biggest mistakes organizations make is treating communication as episodic. A press release here. A media briefing there. That approach does not build trust.
At APD, communication was treated as an ongoing responsibility. Talking points were developed not only for crisis moments but for routine engagement. Speeches reinforced core themes—media appearances aligned with long-term messaging rather than short-term reaction.
The same principles were carried across platforms. Traditional media. Social media. Community events. Internal communication. Each reinforced the others.
This consistency allowed the department to explain its position rather than defend it. There is a difference. Defense implies retreat. Explanation invites understanding.
Lessons for Public Institutions
Several lessons emerge from this work.
First, trust is cumulative. It is built through steady, visible communication, not emergency response alone.
Second, people connect to people. Telling the stories of officers and staff creates context that statistics and policy documents cannot.
Third, leadership access matters. When leaders are visible and willing to engage, it strengthens credibility even among skeptics.
Finally, organizations must explain their decisions in plain language across multiple platforms. Avoiding the conversation allows others to define it for you.
Conclusion
The experience with the Atlanta Police Department reinforces a principle that applies far beyond public safety. Institutions that invest in continuous storytelling and transparent leadership communication are better positioned to be understood when scrutiny intensifies.
Public trust is not something that can be activated on demand. It must be earned over time, long before the headlines arrive.