In a two-part article for PM magazine, we collected survey responses from over 446 city and county managers and administrators to better understand how residency requirements impact the recruitment and retention of the management profession. Our research aligns with the National Academy of Public Administrators (NAPA) Local Government Working Group, which asked, “What are the effects of local government residency requirements specifically for city managers?”

Survey and Survey Methodology 

To gather this data, we distributed a 25-question survey to seven state ICMA chapters, which agreed to disseminate an electronic link to their members.  We also asked several other organizations and partners to help promote the study by disseminating information along with a link to the survey on their social media platforms.  The purpose was to obtain a large enough sample to compare results and, later, to conduct further statistical analysis of the data collected. 

The resulting sampling method yielded a 52% response rate (n=231) among managers who self-identified as having lived in the same community where they worked, to 48% (n=214) among those who did not live in the same community where they worked. 

Survey Results

Of the 25 questions asked, the first set of questions was targeted toward understanding the demographics of communities, of those who responded: 

Regarding the type of community they managed, 30% identified as municipal managers or administrators of rural areas, 57% as suburban, and 13% as part of urban communities. 

Concerning the size of the community they worked in, 5% were from municipalities with 100,001 or more residents, 11% from those with 50,001–100,000 residents, 16% from municipalities with 25,001–50,000 residents, 28% with 10,001–25,000 residents, and 40% from municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents.

The next set of questions relates to tenure and residency. 

Regarding tenure, 9% had one year or less, 9% between one and five years, 44% between five and 10 years, and 22% had 10 or more years.

When asked whether the manager lived in their community, 52% (N=231) answered “Yes,” and 48% (N=214) responded “No.”

Of those who responded “yes” to having lived in the community, when asked if the community they worked in had a residency requirement, 57% answered “Yes,” and 43% responded “No.”

When asked whether a residency requirement ever discouraged a manager from applying for a position, 48% said “Yes.” 

The remaining questions aimed to understand attitudes towards constituents' and elected officials' views, and work/life balance. Further regressive analysis was conducted to test these questions against whether a manager or administrator resided or did not reside in the community where they worked:   

This set of questions revealed the following:

When asked how well a manager understands their community and constituents’ needs, the results showed that 90% of those who live in the municipality they managed responded “very” favorable to “slightly” favorable, compared to 83% of city managers who do not live in the same community where they work.

When asked whether a manager believes their local elected officials view their residence in the community favorably or unfavorably, city managers who live in the community reported that 89% perceived a “very” to “slightly” favorable view from their mayor and council. In contrast, only 14% of city managers who do not reside in the community feel their elected officials have a “very” to “slightly” favorable view of them not living there. 

When asked how one feels they maintain a work/life balance, the findings show that 27.3% of managers and administrators who reside in the same community they work in feel they have a “very poor to poor” work/life balance, compared to 21.0% of those who do not reside in the same community. 

Among the N=231 that self-identified themselves as residing in the community they work in 34% of the respondents who are required to reside in the community where they work report a “very poor” to “poor” work/life balance. Interestingly, this number drops to 20% of managers/administrators reporting a “very poor” to “poor” work/life balance when they live in the community but are not required to do so—they chose residency as opposed to having it imposed upon them.

What Is the Data Telling Us? 

Residency and residency requirements for the municipality’s chief appointed officer have positive and negative aspects.

On the positive side, the survey results show that city managers who live in the community they serve are viewed more favorably by elected officials than those who live outside that community. Managers also believe that living in the community gives them a better chance to be more visible, helps them understand their needs more effectively, and allows for better connections with residents. They also feel that interacting with elected officials and constituents can be easier because they know firsthand the community’s conditions. 

Additional comments from the survey indicate that, as with the residents, the manager is affected in the same way—whether through taxes, service delivery, or land-use decisions—and sharing the same experiences as other residents means the manager becomes a stakeholder in the outcomes being made, which can create greater accountability and credibility with the residents. Another comment from the survey notes that the council views you as a long-term partner when you live in the community. 

On the negative side, the survey's effects and residency requirements align with the literature review for this study, in that the non-survey data indicate that a municipality requiring residency may result in fewer applicants for the top position. This shortage of candidates can also harm the quality of the hiring pool.   

Specifically, survey responses noted that the lack of privacy and proper work-life balance are barriers for managers who have or have declined to take a position with a residency requirement. Others stated that residency requirements limit the number and quality of applicants due to various factors, including, but not limited to, the inability of a manager to relocate because of the cost or difficulty of selling a house, difficulty for a partner to find a suitable job, and, as previously mentioned, the lack of privacy and work-life balance.   

The “So What” of this Research?

Again, this article does not take a position for or against residency requirements, especially since many managers have little control over this issue. However, when recruiting qualified talent, there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that residency requirements can decrease the number of applicants. This is important, given that a 2024 MissionSquare report showed that filling executive-level local management positions was 42% more difficult, only slightly less challenging than filling firefighter/emergency medical or IT roles. 

When recruiting candidates, 48% of the managers who responded to this survey indicated they had not applied for a manager position in a municipality that requires residency. Furthermore, one survey respondent expressed concern that a residency requirement might unintentionally be discriminatory against people of color or based on sex. 

Additionally, this article does not need to focus solely on the chief appointed official; the data also supports the challenges of recruiting and retaining middle management and frontline employees who must reside in the community. 

Therefore, instead of mandating residency requirements, municipalities should reconsider removing them and, if legally permissible, either implement a residency requirement within a certain radius or offer incentives for employees to relocate to their community. These incentives could include a salary bonus or a low-interest or forgivable housing loan to facilitate relocation.

Author Footnote: Excerpts for this article in Academics Matters were taken directly from the two ICMA PM magazine articles published in November 2025 and December 2025. 

Mitchell Berg, PhD, is a clinical assistant professor at Indiana University’s Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. 

Heidi Voorhees is retired and serves as a volunteer coach through the ICMA Coach Connect program and continues to write and speak on issues pertaining to local government. 

Ian James is a recent graduate of the IU Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs program and is currently completing an internship in the town management office of Plainfield, Indiana. 

[1] https://research.missionsq.org/content/media/document/2024/4/WorkforceSurveyReport2024.pdf