





































Commonwealth: A Journal of Political Science  Volume 15, Number 1  May 2009

Policy Issue on Emergency Management  2009 PPSA/LORL, PA House of Reps. ISSN 0890-2410

Residency Requirements For
First Responders

Karen Finkenbinder, PhD Candidate
Penn State Harrisburg

Introduction

Disaster planning raises many issues. One of the most important is
that of evacuation planning. The response to Hurricane Katrina allowed
us to see what happens when plans are not viable or not executed as
expected. As a part of evacuation planning, the issue of residency
requirements for first responders has come to the forefront of emergency
response debates.

In 2005, Pennsylvania Senators Orie, Scarnati, Wozniak, and several
others introduced Senate Bill 438 which stated, “No municipality may
require its law enforcement officers to be residents of the municipality in
order to serve in the capacity of law enforcement officer.”1 This
particular bill only dealt with police officers and was not prompted by
emergency response concerns. The bill was tabled, never becoming a
law.

Residency requirements are “rules or regulations promulgated by
city council ordinance, charter provision, or administrative rule that state
that local public employees must live within the boundaries of a
municipality.”2 In recent months, administrators and policymakers have
been questioning such requirements for several reasons:

 The perception that such requirements narrow the applicant pool to a
point that there is increasing incompetence in the ranks;

 Quality-of-life issues such as schools, crime, and affordable housing.

 They inhibit an employee’s opportunities to be promoted; and

 Recent disasters have reinforced the image that there is danger to
first-responders and their families that may preclude first responders
from helping others.3, 4



62 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

In addition to questioning the wisdom of residency requirements,
others are asking questions about federalism – are residency
requirements local, state or federal issues? Holistic disaster planning
requires us to look at many issues and perhaps determine that residency
should be addressed in evacuation plans.5

Disaster Planning

The National Response Plan (2004) specifically addressed the issue
of worker safety for emergency responders.6 At the time of publication,
the nation was still recovering from heavy losses suffered on September
11, 2001, by the New York Fire Department, New York Police
Department, and New York Transit Authority. Subsequent guidance
issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) encourage
municipalities to “pre-plan to the greatest extend possible” for first-
responder safety.7 Similarly, literature published in academic and
practitioner journals have supported pre-planning and minimizing risks
to first-responders.8

It was not until after Hurricane Katrina that the interplay of “worker
safety” and “residency requirements” was noted; however, the large
geographical area involved in the disaster seems to demonstrate that even
those living outside New Orleans were vulnerable. It does not seem that
an emergency responder living in the suburbs of New Orleans fared
much better than one in the city.

The Bipartisan Senate Report observed that there was no planned
evacuation for “essential personnel and non-essential personnel” and that
“many first-responders used their own initiative and left to take care of
their families.”9 As police officers were required to live in New Orleans,
many of them lost their homes, equipment, and uniforms in the flooding;
thus, those that did arrive for duty often were without ballistic vests,
gloves, and waterproof clothing suitable for wading through
contaminated waters. The Senate Report noted that because of the
residency requirements for police officers, they were personally affected
by the hurricane. The White House Report stated that over 70% of New
Orleans officers were victims.10 A later debate on the Department of
Homeland Security’s “Lessons Learned” website addressed the issue of
residency requirements for New Orleans and concluded that we need to



Karen Finkenbinder 63

“re-look at residency requirements.”11 This website is available to all
local, state, and federal employees and is a clearinghouse to share ideas
in the homeland security arena.

Another area of disaster planning that has been discussed is the
possibility of emergency responders following the example of the armed
forces and creating “family care plans.” These plans provide information
such as where the family goes if the military member is sent away or the
member’s duty assignment becomes uninhabitable (such as in sensitive
overseas assignments). A similar concept might be developed for first
responders. The process of creating such plans forces the employee and
family to consider their options.

Further, agencies often require first-responders to have a packed
emergency bag that may include three days of food (often military-style
rations), water, and toiletries. Police officers in particular observe that
their “toolkit” has grown exponentially from the days of a pair of
handcuffs and a revolver – perhaps it may be time to assume that every
first-responder has a “grab and go kit” that allows him to be self-
sufficient for 48-72 hours.

Background

It is helpful to know something about the history of residency
requirements to better understand the arguments for and against them.
As with many other remaining vestiges of bygone days, there is a reason
why many cities created them and in some cases still have residency
ordinances. There is no clearly defined beginning of residency
requirements.12, 13 The most commonly accepted origin of residency
requirements in the United States seems to be that they derived from the
spoils system prevalent in large American cities during the mid-1800s. In
cities such as Chicago and Boston, the local ward bosses hired public
employees, particularly police officers and firefighters. This practice
ensured the ward bosses’ continued reelection by employees whose jobs
were directly tied to the ward bosses. But it also provided a service to
assist the ward bosses in collecting bribes and protection money.

By the twentieth century, reformers had identified machine politics
and residency requirements as being primary causes of corruption and
they issued a call for hiring the “best qualified men regardless of where
they lived.”14 Some municipalities did heed the call (at least partially)



64 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

and required employees to live within a certain distance from the
jurisdiction. After World War II, most large cities saw much of their
populations move to the suburbs. As a result, many municipalities began
to require their employees to live within the jurisdictional boundaries of
their municipality. This was intended to keep employees’ expenditures of
their personal incomes within the municipality as well as ensuring that
emergency personnel were available in a timely manner.15

By the late 1960s, a few large cities still had residency requirements
but most others did not. This was made possible through improved
transportation and the growth of suburbs. This trend reversed when cities
reinstated residency requirements to halt “middle-class flight” to the
suburbs.16 Proponents of residency requirements highlight such success
in “protecting the public coffer and providing more employment to city
residents.”17 With the advent of community policing, a model of policing
that encourages police officers to know their communities, proponents
have noted that residents have a greater interest in quality of life issues
and that officers living in communities help to suppress crime.18 Others
have observed that residency requirements provide a more equitable
balance of race and ethnicity within a community. Finally, some research
has proposed that officers with longer commutes to work experience
more stress and such commutes have negative impacts on the
environment and infrastructure.

Opponents to residency requirements are equally convinced that their
worth is questionable. An analysis of the Miami-Dade Police Department
concluded that residency requirements (often invoked to increase the
number of minority employees) so narrowed the applicant pool that they
were a factor in increasing the incompetence of the force.19 An
examination of consent decrees that impose race-conscious hiring found
that such practices encourage lowering qualifying standards to permit
hiring of recruits with less education and more criminal and financial
problems.20

Employees often oppose such requirements for quality-of-life
reasons. In recent years, more have been vocal in their need to place
families in safe, affordable neighborhoods that can accommodate
disabled family members. Unions often oppose residency requirements
because they inhibit an employee’s ability to be promoted. Police and
fire departments are normally hierarchical organizations with relatively
little opportunity for advancement unless an officer or firefighter is



Karen Finkenbinder 65

willing to move to another department or agency. They may not be free
to do so if residency is required.21 Police unions have noted that their
officers are at risk “simply because they are police officers - harassed,
their children ridiculed and intimidated, along with their cars and homes
being vandalized.”22 Police officers are sometimes victimized by virtue
of their position; however, it is unclear if a residency requirement makes
a difference – criminals are mobile and can travel outside a political
jurisdiction. The “pros” and “cons” of residency are summarized in the
following table:

Table 1: Residency Requirements

Pro Con

 Halts “middle-class” flight

 Protects public coffers

 Provides employment for
residents

 Creates equitable balance of
race/ethnicity in public jobs

 Longer commute times have
negative consequences on
employee and infrastructure

 Narrows applicant pool

 Lowers qualification standards

 Quality of life issues (housing,
crime, schools)

 Inhibits promotions

 Employees and their families in
harms way if disaster strikes

 Police cite safety issue of living
among those they arrest

Today

A recent U.S. Department of Justice survey found that the
“number of police agencies that require residency has significantly
decreased.”23 Some, such as those in Ohio and Rhode Island, have had
little choice as the states have stepped in and passed legislation
prohibiting residency requirements. Further, cities such as Austin, Texas,
that have considered residency requirements discovered they are
prohibited.24 Even when residency requirements are prohibited because
of state or municipal codes, some cities have attempted to get around it
by giving promotion to officers who reside in the jurisdiction.



66 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

New Orleans had been discussing residency requirements before
Hurricane Katrina devastated the city. In 2005, many black business,
civil rights, and religious leaders formed a coalition to oppose
suspending residency requirements for the police department. They
observed that doing so “will increase the number of white officers and
lead to racial problems.” 25 Mayor Nagin countered that “more than 70%
of the city’s residents support lifting them to give the police chief what
he needs.”26 In December 2005, the New Orleans City Council suspended
the residency requirements to help officers who needed to find a place to
live and were not going to be successful in finding it in New Orleans
because of Hurricane Katrina damage.27

Lastly, many police agencies are experiencing a personnel crisis as
they struggle to find replacements for many police officers that are
members of the National Guard or Reserves and have been called up for
extended military service. Some agencies have relaxed hiring standards
in areas such as criminal history, physical fitness, and college degrees.
This concerns criminal justice educators who fear that the move toward
professionalizing public safety is regressing.

The types of residency are generally broken down into three
categories and are summarized in the following table.

Table 2: Types of Residency

None Response Residency Physical Residency

No restrictions –
employee lives
where he or she
chooses

Employee must live within a
certain commuting time or
distance from jurisdiction – may
be distance from employee’s home
to jurisdictional border, work
location, or center of municipality

Employees must live
within jurisdictional
area

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has more local governments than any state except
Illinois.28 With over 2,600 municipalities, there are 1,114 police
departments, 2,062 fire departments, and almost 90,000 emergency
medical services practitioners (emergency medical technicians and



Karen Finkenbinder 67

paramedics assigned within 16 regions). All Pennsylvania cities,
boroughs, and townships outside of rural areas provide police services
and fire services. Though cities most commonly have paid firefighters,
many boroughs have a mixture of paid and volunteer. Thirty percent of
rural municipalities provide police services (their own, contracted, or
regional).29 Those that do not provide police services rely on the
Pennsylvania State Police for coverage. All municipalities have at least
one fire company and associated EMT response unit responsible for its
citizens though it is increasingly becoming difficult to staff volunteer fire
departments.30

Residency is a local issue in Pennsylvania and is often decided
through collective bargaining. It is most common in policing – less
common in fire services because of their dependence on volunteers and
almost non-existent in EMS. It is more common in larger municipalities
such as Philadelphia where a residency requirement exists for all city
employees.

Physical residency, in which an employee must live within their
jurisdiction, is not a common practice in most areas except for agency
leaders (Chief of Police, Fire Chief) and only for paid positions. It is
more common to find response residency in which municipalities require
officers to respond within a certain time frame or live within a certain
distance from the jurisdiction. State and local fire officials were unaware
of any such requirements except for the largest cities because of the
severe volunteer shortage.31

Legal Issues

Residency rules have been the subject of considerable litigation.
Nationwide, there have been many challenges to residency requirements
for all public employees (including school teachers) but overwhelmingly
the courts have reiterated that these are collective bargaining or local
government issues short of any state legislation stating otherwise.32, 33

The two most frequent areas of constitutional litigation have been in the
areas of right to travel and right to equal protection under the law. The
right to travel issue was pretty much settled in the 1970s when the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the City of Philadelphia’s residency requirement
for firefighters. In McCarthy v Philadelphia Civil Service Commission,
424 U.S. 645 (1976), the court ruled that the firefighter did not have a



68 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

“constitutional right to be employed by the City of Philadelphia while he
is living elsewhere.”34

Likewise, when considering the right to equal protection under the
law claim, the state courts addressed the issue in the 1970s. A recent
series of cases in the 1990s brought it to the attention of the federal
courts. Generally, the courts have upheld reasonable residency
ordinances for police officers and firefighters because it is rational to
have a policy that allows such employees to respond more quickly to
emergency calls. What is still in dispute is whether or not disabled
employees can be forced to live within a jurisdiction if they need services
located outside the city.35 The only connection to emergency responders
may be for those who have disabled family members.

In Pennsylvania, the only lawsuit addressing residency requirements
is the case of three former Scranton police officers who were fired after
challenging the city’s residency requirement in 1997. The 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that there was sufficient evidence of retaliation
for the officers to pursue their legal claim.36 In this case, the real issue is
not residency but retaliation. Pittsburgh is the only city in Pennsylvania
in which a state law was passed years ago prohibiting the police union
from even bringing up the residency rule when it negotiates a new
contract for city officers. Officers in other towns are allowed to discuss
eliminating the requirement.37

Union challenges to residency within the bargaining process are
murkier. Arbitrators have issued varied rulings depending on the facts of
each case. Legislation that has been enacted by states to eliminate
residency for police or firefighters has thus far generally been upheld.38

Ohio and Rhode Island have passed such legislation forbidding local
residency requirements. Opponents to residency requirements often tout
that such requirements force the hiring of less-qualified applicants
(particularly those with criminal records). Several cities are under U.S.
Department of Justice consent decrees because officers were hired with
expedited and cursory background checks. 39

These types of issues raise the real possibility of “negligent hiring”
of police officers and other first-responders. First-responders have a great
deal of autonomy and are working in rapidly-evolving, tense situations –
without much, if any, direct supervision.



Karen Finkenbinder 69

Federalism

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created jurisdictional
arrangements as a way to prevent the tyranny of a strong, central
government. Police powers were given to the state so that “states have
the power to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals of its citizens.”40

Local governments have no status in the U.S. Constitution – they are
creations and conveniences of the states. Traditionally they have adapted
state laws to local conditions, taken care of public works, licensed public
accommodations, and provided basic public services. Issues such as
residency requirements traditionally have rested with local authorities
and this is the status-quo. Allowing local governments to make such
decisions brings the decision-making closer to the affected residents and
it allows for collective bargaining. Nevertheless, it makes it difficult to
create disaster plans because of the inconsistencies throughout the state.
Many opponents of residency couch it in constitutional terms and
constitutional issues may be better addressed by the state.

Conversely, the state can “legislate” the issue of residency by
requiring or prohibiting it. Similarly, it can recommend a course of
action and tie it to funding or provide education and information to local
governments. A consistent state policy helps in creating disaster plans.
Nevertheless, local governments generally dislike the state moving into
areas they feel are local issues and it may be difficult to account for very
real local differences. Furthermore, the state might change a policy that
works.

The federal government can also “legislate” residency in a couple of
ways. They might tie disaster preparedness funds or homeland security
funds to a particular residency policy. Or they can provide education and
information to state and local governments. Of course this ensures
consistent disaster planning, but the states will see federal action as
federal encroachment into a state issue. Lastly, this too may have
unintended consequences by changing policies that work.

Conclusion

Police residency in Pennsylvania is a local issue and thus
inconsistent throughout the Commonwealth. Senate Bill 438 introduced
in 2005 was tabled. Residency mostly affects police officers and some



70 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

paid firefighters. It has vociferous opponents and proponents. It does not
seem that it is an “all or nothing” proposition. Disaster planners look at
issues that may impact community readiness. Hurricane Katrina was an
exceptional event. It may not be necessary to change current policies
because of Hurricane Katrina; however, it should be noted that
Pennsylvania is one of the most flood-prone states in the United States
and has had its own share of disasters. Pennsylvania also has more
commercial truck traffic (much of it carrying hazardous materials) than
any state in the eastern United States. It also has a large amount of rail
traffic that is equally vulnerable to disasters. It is not inconceivable that
Pennsylvania can have a disaster (man-made or natural) in which
residency of first responders might be relevant.

One of the most important considerations of disaster planning is the
ability of first responders to adequately respond. Policymakers desiring
to have rational, well-thought out disaster plans need to look at the issues
surrounding such response. First-responder residency clearly fits into this
area. One of the lessons noted after Hurricane Katrina dealt with the
failure of policymakers and emergency management practitioners to
inculcate the recommendations made after training exercises and
previous disasters. They failed to make important decisions necessary to
safeguard the residents of New Orleans and surrounding communities.
Pennsylvania should not make the same mistake. To quote former British
Prime Minister John Major, “The politician who never made a mistake,
never made a decision.”41 Conversely, failing to make a decision may
clearly turn out to be a larger mistake.

Policymakers can create policy to promote residency or forbid it.
This may be done at all levels of government. But there may be
unintended consequences to any decision. One can only make a decision
based upon the known advantages and disadvantages. These are
summarized in Table 3, on the following page.

Hurricane Katrina taught us that we suffer predictable consequences
when we fail to use existing information and be decisive in creating and
executing our emergency plans. It is prudent for us to use the lessons
learned to make decisions in creating our current emergency response
policies.



Karen Finkenbinder 71

Table 3: Levels of Government: Disadvantages and
Advantages of Deciding the Issue at Each Level

Local Issue

Advantages:
 Status Quo
 Decision-making closer to

residents

 Collective-bargaining possible

Disadvantages:
 Inconsistent throughout state

which makes it difficult to create
disaster plans

 Constitutional issues may be
better addressed by the State

State Issue

Advantages:
 Can legislate the issue state-wide
 Can recommend a course of

action and tie it to funding
 Can provide education and

information to local governments
 A consistent state policy helps in

creating disaster plans

Disadvantages:
 Locals usually dislike the state

moving in to areas they feel are
local issues

 Difficult to account for very real
local differences

 May be changing a policy that
works

Federal Issue

Advantages:
 Ensures consistent disaster

planning
 Can tie to disaster preparedness

and/or homeland security
funding

 Can provide education and
information to state and local
governments

Disadvantages:
 States will see as federal

encroachment into a state issue
 May have unintended

consequences by changing
policies that work

Notes
1An Act providing for law enforcement residency requirements, 2005, Pennsylvania
Senate Bill 438 P.N. 461, http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/bt
Check.cfm

2Johnson, J.H. & Zeigler, D.J. (1983). Distinguishing Human Responses to Radiological
Emergencies. Economic Geography 59 (4), 386-401.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/bt Check.cfm
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/bt Check.cfm


72 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

3Department of Homeland Security (2006). Lessons Learned from Information Sharing.
Retrieved May 14, 2006.
4Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.S. (2006).
Hurricane Katrina: A nation still unprepared. Washington, DC: United States Senate.
5RAND (2004). Safeguarding Emergency Responders During Major Disasters and
Terrorist Attack: The Need for an Integrated Approach (Research Brief). Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
6Department of Homeland Security (2004). National Response Plan. (DHS Publication).
Washington, DC.
7Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (2005). National Response Plan,
Retrieved April 16, 2006.
8Green, L. and P. Kolesar (2004). Improving Emergency Responsiveness With
Management Science. Management Science 50 (8), 1001-1014.
9Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.S. (2006).
Ibid.
10The White House (2006). The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons
Learned. Washington, DC.
11Department of Homeland Security (2006). Lessons Learned Information Sharing.
Retrieved May 14, 2006.
12Schall, D.J. (1996). An Investigation into the Relationship between Municipal Police
Residency Requirements, Professionalism, Economic Conditions and Employment Goals.
13Johnson, B.R., G.L. Warchol & V.W. Bumphus (1997). Policy Residential
Requirements: An Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Collective Negotiation 28 (1) 43-64.
14Johnson, B.R. et al., ibid.
15Governing Magazine (1995). After 200 Years, City Residency Laws Still Controversial
Policies Often Reactivated at Times of Fiscal Crises, Urban Flight as reprinted in the St.
Louis Dispatch, St. Louis, MO, 16 July 1995.
16White, A.G. (1978). Municipal Employees Residency Requirements – A Problem of
Public Administration: A Selected Biography. Vance Bibliographies Public
Administration Series: Bibliography P179.
17Johnson, B.R. et al., ibid.
18(2006, August 28). The Austin Statesman, p. H2.
19Lott, J.R. (2000). Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police
Departments and Crimes. Economic Inquiry, April 2000.
20Lott, J.R. ibid.
21Crowley, C (2005). Residency requirements repealed. The Providence Journal. P C05.
22Lutz, Michael (2007) President’s Message: The Issue of Residency for Police Officers”
published in FOP letter – accessed on 1/18/2007.



Karen Finkenbinder 73

23Taylor, B., B. Kabu, L. Fridell, C. Reese, T. Jordan & J. Cheney (2005). The Cop
Crunch: Identifying Strategies for Dealing with Recruiting and Hiring in Law
Enforcement. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
24(2006, August 28). The Austin Statesmen. Ibid.
25Kropko, M.R. (2006, May 1). Cities Challenge New Residency Law on Constitutional
Grounds. Associated Press.
26Grace, S. (2005, May 15). Nagin Ducks Residency Requirement. Times-Picayune (New
Orleans), p 7.
27Grace, S., Ibid.
28The Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2003). Fact Sheet: Trends in Rural Pennsylvania:
Local Government Capacity. Harrisburg, PA.
29The Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2006). Fact Sheet: Survey of Small-Town Police
Departments. Harrisburg, PA.
30The Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2006). Volunteer Firefighter Recruitment and
Retention in Rural Pennsylvania, Harrisburg PA.
31Fensler, D. (personal communication, November 30, 2006).
32Pennsylvania Bar Institute (2004). What Every Municipal Solicitor Should Know About
Labor and Employment Law. Mechanicsburg, PA.
33National Public Employer Labor Relations Association (January 1, 2007). Accessed
on-line.
34NPELRA, 2007, Ibid.
35McDonald v. Menino, 1997 WL 106995 (D. Mass. January 3, 1997).
36Dale, M. (2005, June 14). Fired Scranton Officers Can Sue the City. Philadelphia
Inquirer.
37Barnes, T. (2003, May 3). Third Time is a Charm: Police May Lose Residency
Requirement. Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
38NPELRA, 2007, Ibid.
39Johnson, B., et al. (1997) Ibid.
40Lowi, T., B. Ginsberg & K. Shepsle (2004). American Government: Power and
Purpose, Eighth Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
41Major, John (1990, November 25). BBC Radio 4 (UK), “World This Weekend.”


