In writing this article, we heard from a few managers who told us they had either chosen purposefully to quit their jobs, not apply for jobs, or withdrew a job offer due to an inability to find housing, the inability to relocate due to their spouse or significant other, or the impact the job would impose on their children as barriers to applying for a municipality with a residency requirement.

Conversely, we also heard from several managers who felt that living in the community they manage gave them greater insight into local issues and increased credibility with their
elected officials and residents. Many expressed that residing in the community also helps them stay connected with residents, as they are affected equally with residents and elected officials in their decisions.

In this first of a two-part article on how residency requirements affect the recruitment and retention of city managers and administrators, we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of cities imposing residency requirements, a brief history of how residency requirements became part of the HR fabric, the number of states that mandate or allow communities to set such requirements, and the influence that residency requirements have on attracting and keeping city managers and administrators.

A 2006 International Public Management Association for Human Resources report found that mandating residency requirements increased the likelihood for their employees, such as their city managers/administrators, to become more invested in the community, make more conscious decisions, and be more likely to interact with community officials and residents.

In a 2017 PM magazine article on residency recommendations, Steven Vinezeano makes several supporting arguments for residency requirements among public employees, including
that they enable them to take a greater interest in the results of their work and increase public confidence. According to a University of Wisconsin Extension article and PA Times article, the disadvantage of requiring residency is that, although preferred by elected officials, it may decrease the number of interested applicants.

Additional research suggests that not only is the applicant pool more limited, but that residency could also lead to a less qualified pool of candidates. Also, the effect of residency on a
city manager can result in a poor work-life balance, which may negatively impact retention. Understanding the early history and reasoning behind residency requirements can also
explain why some states and municipalities mandate that their chief appointed officers reside in their community.

According to a 1983 article by Peter Eisinger, “Municipal Residency Requirements and the Local Economy,” residency requirements originated from the early machine era and spoil system, where elected officials often rewarded their neighbors with public sector jobs for supporting their election. Therefore, the civil service and reform movement made significant efforts to eliminate and repeal those laws in order to establish the city manager/administrator as a career profession.

However, by the 1970s, municipalities again began to impose broader residency requirements on their employees. During that decade, larger cities and those with declining economies were more likely to require residency for economic reasons to help address their communities’ distress. Even today, many states enable their municipalities to impose a residency requirement on the chief administrative officer, and in some cases, their department heads. Four states have outright banned residency requirements: Georgia, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Ohio. The remaining 46 states either allow municipalities to impose residency requirements, permit only home-rule or charter communities to enact residency
requirements, or impose a distance requirement of how far a manager can live from the city where they work.

Having explored the reasoning behind why municipalities impose a residency requirement and the states and jurisdictions that can or cannot impose one, we now focus this article on
the results of our nationwide survey on the impact of residency and non-residency requirements on recruitment and retention within the city management profession. With the assistance of several ICMA state chapters, Indiana University’s Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Heidi Voorhees from MGT Consulting, and Ron Holifield from SGR Consulting, a 26-question survey was distributed using the online platform Qualtrics through email blasts and social media. A total of 446 city managers responded to the study. 

Survey Results

Of those who completed the survey, here are some of the initial findings:

• 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 where they worked, 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.
• 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% answered “Yes,” and 48% 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.”

The remaining questions aimed to explore some of the earlier reasons regarding the pros and cons of living in a community where someone is the manager. Some of these 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 whether a residency requirement ever discouraged a manager from applying for a position, 48% said “yes.” 
• Regarding retention and community residency requirements, responses were nearly evenly split; those reporting a residency requirement indicated that 5% had been in their position for less than a year, 38% for 1–5 years, and 56.6% for five or more years. Among those not in a community with a residency requirement, 7% were in their position for less than a year, 36% for 1–5 years, and 56.5% for five or more years.
• The results when asked if they live in the community where they work (not necessarily due to a residency requirement) show that in this group, 6.5% had been in their position for less than a year, 38% for 1–5 years, and 56.7% for five or more years. Conversely, among those not living in the community, 7% were in their position for less than a year, 36% for 1–5 years, and 35.1% for five or more years.

Finally, when asked about the reasons why residency negatively affected a manager’s decision to apply, accept, or stay in their position, the most common responses, listed from most to least frequent, are housing costs, children needing to change schools or the difficulty in finding childcare, the political instability of the elected body, a partner’s inability to find a suitable job, and the (poor) quality of the school system.

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.

The adverse effect of residency and residency requirements from the survey aligns with the non-survey data, indicating 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, the comments from the survey responses mentioned 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 noted 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 survey also examined how residency affected their tenure. The results measured the difference between managers who voluntarily chose to live in the community they served and those who were required to live in the community. The results showed that those who voluntarily or were required to reside in their community tended to have a longer tenure, especially for those managers who have remained in their position for five years or more.

Strategies to Enhance the Recruitment and Retention of the Local Manager Position

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, enough data supports 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 within a municipality requiring 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 necessarily need to focus only on the chief appointed official; the data also supports the challenges of recruiting and retaining middle management and front-line employees required to reside in the community.

Therefore, instead of mandating residency requirements, municipalities should reconsider removing such mandates and, if legally permissible, consider implementing a residency requirement within a certain radius or offering 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.

Actionable Recommendations

1. When considering whether to eliminate a residency requirement, first assess whether the current requirement has been (or could be) a barrier to recruiting and retaining the most talented and qualified candidates. If it has, identify and evaluate the obstacles, then develop a new policy to address them. For example, if the municipality is an isolated rural community with fewer than 1,000 residents, even replacing a residency requirement with one that mandates the manager to live within 15 miles might still create a greater barrier than imposing a 15-mile radius requirement on a large city with more than 100,000 residents.
2. Be realistic about housing costs. Many elected bodies consist of residents who bought their homes decades ago. It is important to stay informed about current housing costs and the variety of available housing.
3. Be proactive when revising or removing any policy, as many communities find that their residency language, if included in their charter, is a significant hiring barrier.
4. Removing a residency requirement does not have to be an all-or-nothing approach. If legally permitted, consider offering employees incentives to live in the community, such as a low-interest or forgivable home loan, daycare subsidy, or relocation bonus. Also, consider language such as, “Residency in the community is desired, but not mandatory.”

Additionally, the survey results indicated that one out of every four city managers or administrators felt that they had a “very poor” or “poor” work-life balance. Several comments specifically cited this as a contributor to not wanting to reside in the community where one works, as well as an overall job challenge. 

As a result, in the second part of this article, we will focus on the impact and solutions for maintaining a healthy work-life balance, especially for those managers and administrators who either reside or are required to reside within their community. 

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 a former village manager and consultant and is now retired. She 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.