Work-From-Home Trends by State and Metro Area
By Founder Reports – November 2026
The U.S. Census Bureau released numbers from its latest American Community Survey (ACS) on October 29, 2026. We’ve used this data to calculate the percentage of workers who work from home in each state and metro area. Work-from-home trends have shifted significantly since 2019, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and then the rise in RTO mandates over the past few years.
We’ve compiled the data to see which states and metro areas have the highest and lowest percentages of remote workers. We’ve also compared states and metro areas to see which ones have experienced the sharpest declines in work-from-home percentages over the past few years. On this page, you’ll find sortable tables for states and metro areas.
Key Findings
- In 2025, 12.9% of U.S. workers mainly worked from home, down from a peak of 17.9% in 2021. The current share is still more than double the 5.7% pre-pandemic figure from 2019.
- All 50 states and D.C. still have a significantly higher work-from-home share than they did in 2019.
- The San Francisco Bay Area has reversed a larger share of its pandemic WFH increase than any other region. San Jose has given back 74% of its 2019-to-peak gain, Santa Cruz-Watsonville 68%, and San Francisco 62%.
- Colorado placed three metros in the top 10 of the 2025 rankings. Boulder ranked first, Denver-Aurora-Centennial fifth, and Fort Collins-Loveland tenth.
- Five of the 10 metros with the biggest declines from peak are in California, Washington, or the D.C. area, places with heavy tech, federal, and professional-services employment.
- Wyoming and South Dakota were the only two states where the work-from-home share rose significantly from 2024 to 2025, up 1.9 and 1.8 points.
- 19 states saw a statistically significant decrease from 2024 to 2025. The other 30 showed no significant change.
- 12 metros reached their work-from-home peak in 2025, including Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL (17.4%), North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL (18.2%), Logan, UT-ID (17.0%), Salem, OR (13.2%), Macon-Bibb County, GA (12.0%), Killeen-Temple, TX (11.4%), Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC (10.9%), and El Paso, TX (10.4%).
Download the full data used for our rankings (CSV files): States | Metros | Metros with partial data. Journalists who want the full dataset, including year-by-year estimates and the live-formula Excel workbooks, can email info@founderreports.com.
States with the Highest Work-from-Home Percentages
Washington, D.C. holds the top spot by a wide margin, reflecting its federal workforce that was slower to return to the office than most private-sector workforces, even as agency-wide RTO mandates have brought that share down from its 2021 peak.
- District of Columbia — 22.7%
- Colorado — 18.8%
- Arizona — 16.2%
- Vermont — 15.9%
- Washington — 15.7%
- Florida — 15.5%
- North Carolina — 15.1%
- Oregon — 15.1%
- Utah — 14.9%
- Minnesota — 14.8%
States with the Lowest Work-from-Home Percentages
The bottom 10 skews heavily toward states whose economies are built on agriculture, energy, hospitality, and other sectors that generally require physical presence.
- North Dakota — 6.3%
- Mississippi — 6.5%
- Alaska — 7.1%
- Louisiana — 7.4%
- West Virginia — 8.2%
- Alabama — 8.6%
- Hawaii — 8.6%
- Oklahoma — 8.7%
- Arkansas — 8.8%
- Nebraska — 8.9%
States with the Biggest Declines
Nearly every state in this group is anchored by major metro areas built on office-based industries like tech, finance, biotech, media, and professional services.
- District of Columbia — down 25.6 pts (peak 48.3% in 2021)
- Maryland — down 10.3 pts (peak 24.0% in 2021)
- Massachusetts — down 9.5 pts (peak 23.7% in 2021)
- New Jersey — down 9.2 pts (peak 22.1% in 2021)
- Washington — down 8.5 pts (peak 24.2% in 2021)
- Virginia — down 8.4 pts (peak 22.3% in 2021)
- New York — down 8.2 pts (peak 19.6% in 2021)
- California — down 8.0 pts (peak 21.4% in 2021)
- Oregon — down 7.5 pts (peak 22.7% in 2021)
- Connecticut — down 7.1 pts (peak 19.5% in 2021)
Metro Areas with the Highest Work-from-Home Percentages
The top of the list is dominated by university-adjacent cities, Research Triangle hubs, and tech centers that drew knowledge workers well before the pandemic. Colorado placed three metros in the top 10, and Florida has five metros in the top 20 nationally.
- Boulder, CO — 24.9%
- Raleigh-Cary, NC — 22.8%
- Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX — 22.1%
- Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO — 21.1%
- Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL — 19.3%
- Kingston, NY — 18.3%
- North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL — 18.2%
- Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA — 18.2%
- Fort Collins-Loveland, CO — 18.1%
- San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA — 17.9%
Metro Areas with the Biggest Declines
The San Francisco Bay Area shows up three times in the top 10 (San Jose, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz-Watsonville). Each metro area in the top ten is anchored by an unusually high concentration of office-based tech, finance, biotech, media, government, or professional-services employment.
- San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA — down 22.2 pts (peak 34.8% in 2021)
- San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA — down 17.2 pts (peak 35.1% in 2021)
- Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV — down 15.7 pts (peak 33.1% in 2021)
- Trenton-Princeton, NJ — down 13.8 pts (peak 28.0% in 2021)
- Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA — down 12.4 pts (peak 30.6% in 2021)
- Ann Arbor, MI — down 11.8 pts (peak 29.5% in 2021)
- Boulder, CO — down 11.3 pts (peak 36.3% in 2021)
- Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH — down 11.1 pts (peak 26.9% in 2021)
- Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA — down 10.7 pts (peak 24.0% in 2021)
- New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ — down 10.4 pts (peak 22.8% in 2021)
State Rankings by Work-from-Home Percentage
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, ranked by 2025 work-from-home share. The table includes margin of error, each state’s peak year and share, the change from peak, and the change since 2019.
The MOE column shows the margin of error at the 90% confidence level, the standard the U.S. Census Bureau uses. A state with a 15.0% work-from-home share and an MOE of ±0.5 means the true value is very likely between 14.5% and 15.5%. States and metro areas with smaller populations tend to have larger margins of error because the ACS samples fewer households in those places.
Rank | State | 2025 WFH Share (%) | MOE (± pts) | Peak Share (%) | Peak Year | Change From Peak (pts) | Change 2019 to 2025 (pts) |
1 | District of Columbia | 22.7 | 1.8 | 48.3 | 2021 | -25.6 | 15.3 |
2 | Colorado | 18.8 | 0.4 | 23.7 | 2021 | -4.9 | 9.7 |
3 | Arizona | 16.2 | 0.5 | 20.7 | 2021 | -4.5 | 8.6 |
4 | Vermont | 15.9 | 1.3 | 19.6 | 2021 | -3.7 | 8.8 |
5 | Washington | 15.7 | 0.3 | 24.2 | 2021 | -8.5 | 9.2 |
6 | Florida | 15.5 | 0.2 | 16.6 | 2021 | -1.2 | 8.5 |
7 | North Carolina | 15.1 | 0.3 | 18.8 | 2021 | -3.7 | 8.4 |
8 | Oregon | 15.1 | 0.5 | 22.7 | 2021 | -7.5 | 7.8 |
9 | Utah | 14.9 | 0.5 | 20.0 | 2021 | -5.1 | 7.5 |
10 | Minnesota | 14.8 | 0.3 | 20.9 | 2021 | -6.1 | 8.3 |
11 | Georgia | 14.5 | 0.4 | 18.2 | 2021 | -3.7 | 7.5 |
12 | New Hampshire | 14.4 | 0.8 | 19.3 | 2021 | -4.9 | 7.1 |
13 | Massachusetts | 14.2 | 0.4 | 23.7 | 2021 | -9.5 | 8.8 |
14 | Delaware | 14.0 | 1.1 | 18.6 | 2021 | -4.6 | 8.8 |
15 | Virginia | 13.9 | 0.3 | 22.3 | 2021 | -8.4 | 8.2 |
16 | Maine | 13.7 | 0.8 | 17.7 | 2021 | -4.0 | 7.4 |
17 | Maryland | 13.7 | 0.4 | 24.0 | 2021 | -10.3 | 8.2 |
18 | Pennsylvania | 13.6 | 0.3 | 18.7 | 2021 | -5.0 | 8.2 |
19 | California | 13.4 | 0.2 | 21.4 | 2021 | -8.0 | 7.1 |
20 | New Jersey | 13.0 | 0.3 | 22.1 | 2021 | -9.2 | 8.1 |
21 | Texas | 12.9 | 0.2 | 16.3 | 2021 | -3.3 | 7.2 |
22 | Illinois | 12.9 | 0.3 | 19.3 | 2021 | -6.3 | 7.5 |
23 | Idaho | 12.8 | 0.6 | 13.5 | 2023 | -0.7 | 5.4 |
24 | Tennessee | 12.5 | 0.3 | 14.0 | 2021 | -1.5 | 6.9 |
25 | Connecticut | 12.4 | 0.5 | 19.5 | 2021 | -7.1 | 6.8 |
26 | Montana | 12.1 | 0.9 | 14.0 | 2021 | -2.0 | 5.5 |
27 | South Carolina | 11.6 | 0.4 | 12.3 | 2024 | -0.7 | 6.5 |
28 | Wisconsin | 11.6 | 0.3 | 14.8 | 2021 | -3.2 | 6.5 |
29 | Wyoming | 11.6 | 1.2 | 11.6 | 2025 | 0.0 | 5.8 |
30 | Missouri | 11.5 | 0.3 | 14.7 | 2021 | -3.2 | 6.4 |
31 | New York | 11.5 | 0.2 | 19.6 | 2021 | -8.2 | 6.7 |
32 | Rhode Island | 11.5 | 0.9 | 17.5 | 2021 | -6.1 | 6.9 |
33 | Ohio | 11.3 | 0.3 | 14.8 | 2021 | -3.5 | 6.7 |
34 | Michigan | 11.1 | 0.3 | 16.4 | 2021 | -5.3 | 6.6 |
35 | Kansas | 10.2 | 0.5 | 13.8 | 2021 | -3.6 | 5.1 |
36 | Nevada | 10.1 | 0.6 | 13.0 | 2021 | -2.8 | 5.3 |
37 | New Mexico | 10.1 | 0.7 | 15.2 | 2021 | -5.2 | 5.0 |
38 | South Dakota | 9.8 | 0.8 | 11.1 | 2021 | -1.3 | 3.7 |
39 | Indiana | 9.8 | 0.4 | 11.9 | 2021 | -2.0 | 5.5 |
40 | Kentucky | 9.7 | 0.4 | 11.5 | 2021 | -1.7 | 5.4 |
41 | Iowa | 9.6 | 0.4 | 13.4 | 2021 | -3.8 | 3.9 |
42 | Nebraska | 8.9 | 0.5 | 12.8 | 2021 | -3.9 | 4.3 |
43 | Arkansas | 8.8 | 0.6 | 9.7 | 2021 | -0.9 | 5.3 |
44 | Oklahoma | 8.7 | 0.3 | 10.4 | 2021 | -1.7 | 4.3 |
45 | Alabama | 8.6 | 0.4 | 9.6 | 2021 | -1.0 | 5.2 |
46 | Hawaii | 8.6 | 0.6 | 10.7 | 2021 | -2.1 | 3.8 |
47 | West Virginia | 8.2 | 0.6 | 10.2 | 2021 | -2.0 | 4.3 |
48 | Louisiana | 7.4 | 0.4 | 8.4 | 2021 | -1.0 | 3.5 |
49 | Alaska | 7.1 | 0.7 | 10.3 | 2021 | -3.2 | 2.8 |
50 | Mississippi | 6.5 | 0.5 | 6.5 | 2025 | 0.0 | 3.3 |
51 | North Dakota | 6.3 | 0.7 | 8.9 | 2021 | -2.6 | 2.7 |
Metro Area Rankings by Work-from-Home Percentage
Metro areas with complete 2019-to-2025 data on consistent boundaries. These 148 metros have a published ACS estimate for 2019 and kept the same boundaries through the 2023 federal metro-area reclassification, so comparisons across the full series are reliable. Ranked by 2025 work-from-home share.
Rank | Metro Area | 2025 WFH Share (%) | MOE (± pts) | Peak Share (%) | Peak Year | Change From Peak (pts) | Change 2019 to 2025 (pts) |
1 | Boulder, CO | 24.9 | 1.8 | 36.3 | 2021 | -11.3 | 11.2 |
2 | Raleigh-Cary, NC | 22.8 | 1.2 | 31.0 | 2021 | -8.2 | 12.5 |
3 | Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX | 22.1 | 1.1 | 32.2 | 2021 | -10.1 | 11.7 |
4 | Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO | 21.1 | 0.6 | 27.5 | 2021 | -6.4 | 12.0 |
5 | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL | 19.3 | 0.8 | 21.2 | 2021 | -1.9 | 10.7 |
6 | Kingston, NY | 18.3 | 3.2 | 20.5 | 2021 | -2.2 | 8.5 |
7 | North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL | 18.2 | 1.4 | 18.2 | 2025 | 0.0 | 9.8 |
8 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 18.2 | 0.6 | 30.6 | 2021 | -12.4 | 11.7 |
9 | Fort Collins-Loveland, CO | 18.1 | 1.9 | 24.2 | 2021 | -6.1 | 8.0 |
10 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 17.9 | 0.5 | 35.1 | 2021 | -17.2 | 10.7 |
11 | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA | 17.7 | 0.6 | 27.5 | 2021 | -9.7 | 9.7 |
12 | Ann Arbor, MI | 17.7 | 1.7 | 29.5 | 2021 | -11.8 | 11.8 |
13 | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL | 17.6 | 0.7 | 19.1 | 2022 | -1.4 | 10.6 |
14 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA | 17.6 | 0.5 | 24.2 | 2021 | -6.5 | 8.8 |
15 | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ | 17.4 | 0.6 | 23.4 | 2021 | -6.0 | 9.5 |
16 | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 17.4 | 0.4 | 33.1 | 2021 | -15.7 | 11.1 |
17 | Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL | 17.4 | 1.4 | 17.4 | 2025 | 0.0 | 9.4 |
18 | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC | 17.3 | 0.6 | 25.3 | 2021 | -8.0 | 9.2 |
19 | Burlington-South Burlington, VT | 17.3 | 2.4 | 24.1 | 2021 | -6.8 | 11.0 |
20 | Jacksonville, FL | 17.1 | 1.0 | 19.3 | 2023 | -2.1 | 9.6 |
21 | Logan, UT-ID | 17.0 | 3.4 | 17.0 | 2025 | 0.0 | 9.3 |
22 | Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 17.0 | 0.4 | 26.0 | 2021 | -9.0 | 10.6 |
23 | Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN | 17.0 | 0.9 | 20.6 | 2021 | -3.6 | 9.2 |
24 | Colorado Springs, CO | 16.4 | 1.1 | 18.0 | 2021 | -1.7 | 8.3 |
25 | Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA | 16.3 | 0.7 | 23.3 | 2021 | -7.0 | 8.5 |
26 | San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA | 16.1 | 0.6 | 22.1 | 2021 | -6.0 | 8.6 |
27 | Naples-Marco Island, FL | 16.0 | 1.7 | 20.9 | 2024 | -4.9 | 8.7 |
28 | Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 16.0 | 1.1 | 21.5 | 2021 | -5.5 | 8.2 |
29 | Salt Lake City-Murray, UT | 15.9 | 0.8 | 22.9 | 2021 | -7.0 | 9.4 |
30 | Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH | 15.8 | 0.5 | 26.9 | 2021 | -11.1 | 10.2 |
31 | Charleston-North Charleston, SC | 15.6 | 1.4 | 16.1 | 2021 | -0.6 | 8.8 |
32 | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 15.6 | 0.5 | 23.6 | 2021 | -8.1 | 9.7 |
33 | Boise City, ID | 15.5 | 1.1 | 17.0 | 2023 | -1.6 | 7.8 |
34 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX | 15.3 | 0.4 | 20.7 | 2021 | -5.3 | 8.7 |
35 | Bridgeport-Stamford-Danbury, CT | 15.2 | 0.9 | 23.5 | 2021 | -8.2 | 9.0 |
36 | Madison, WI | 15.2 | 1.1 | 22.6 | 2021 | -7.4 | 9.5 |
37 | Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL | 15.1 | 1.9 | 16.3 | 2022 | -1.2 | 8.8 |
38 | Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, WA | 15.1 | 1.9 | 18.8 | 2021 | -3.7 | 9.5 |
39 | Pittsburgh, PA | 14.9 | 0.7 | 21.1 | 2021 | -6.2 | 9.1 |
40 | San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA | 14.7 | 2.1 | 16.2 | 2022 | -1.6 | 5.9 |
41 | Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL | 14.7 | 1.5 | 17.1 | 2023 | -2.5 | 6.3 |
42 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN | 14.3 | 0.4 | 21.5 | 2021 | -7.2 | 8.6 |
43 | Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | 14.3 | 1.4 | 19.8 | 2021 | -5.5 | 8.3 |
44 | Cedar Rapids, IA | 14.2 | 2.0 | 14.6 | 2022 | -0.4 | 8.6 |
45 | Trenton-Princeton, NJ | 14.2 | 1.6 | 28.0 | 2021 | -13.8 | 8.2 |
46 | Kansas City, MO-KS | 14.2 | 0.8 | 20.0 | 2021 | -5.8 | 7.8 |
47 | Richmond, VA | 14.2 | 0.9 | 23.0 | 2021 | -8.8 | 8.4 |
48 | Indianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood, IN | 14.2 | 0.7 | 17.7 | 2021 | -3.5 | 8.5 |
49 | Columbus, OH | 14.1 | 0.7 | 23.0 | 2021 | -8.9 | 8.7 |
50 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA | 13.8 | 0.3 | 21.2 | 2021 | -7.4 | 7.5 |
51 | Rochester, MN | 13.7 | 1.7 | 15.3 | 2023 | -1.7 | 7.8 |
52 | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL | 13.5 | 0.5 | 16.1 | 2021 | -2.6 | 7.2 |
53 | Chattanooga, TN-GA | 13.4 | 1.2 | 14.3 | 2021 | -0.9 | 7.5 |
54 | Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA | 13.3 | 1.6 | 20.6 | 2021 | -7.3 | 5.2 |
55 | Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD | 13.3 | 0.6 | 22.2 | 2021 | -8.9 | 7.8 |
56 | Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA | 13.3 | 1.9 | 24.0 | 2021 | -10.7 | 5.0 |
57 | Salem, OR | 13.2 | 1.6 | 13.2 | 2025 | 0.0 | 6.9 |
58 | Greeley, CO | 13.1 | 1.9 | 15.9 | 2021 | -2.8 | 5.2 |
59 | Bellingham, WA | 13.1 | 1.7 | 16.8 | 2021 | -3.6 | 5.0 |
60 | Kiryas Joel-Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY | 13.0 | 1.2 | 16.7 | 2021 | -3.7 | 6.3 |
61 | Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA | 13.0 | 1.2 | 18.9 | 2021 | -5.9 | 6.8 |
62 | Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI | 12.9 | 0.8 | 17.9 | 2021 | -5.0 | 8.2 |
63 | Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | 12.8 | 0.6 | 17.1 | 2021 | -4.3 | 7.4 |
64 | Manchester-Nashua, NH | 12.8 | 1.2 | 22.7 | 2021 | -10.0 | 6.0 |
65 | Lancaster, PA | 12.7 | 1.1 | 13.8 | 2021 | -1.1 | 7.7 |
66 | Kalamazoo-Portage, MI | 12.7 | 1.6 | 13.3 | 2023 | -0.6 | 8.4 |
67 | St. Louis, MO-IL | 12.7 | 0.6 | 18.7 | 2021 | -6.0 | 7.6 |
68 | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 12.6 | 0.7 | 34.8 | 2021 | -22.2 | 7.8 |
69 | Duluth, MN-WI | 12.6 | 1.6 | 13.4 | 2021 | -0.8 | 8.3 |
70 | Akron, OH | 12.6 | 1.2 | 15.4 | 2022 | -2.8 | 7.7 |
71 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ | 12.4 | 0.2 | 22.8 | 2021 | -10.4 | 7.6 |
72 | Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ | 12.4 | 1.2 | 16.7 | 2021 | -4.3 | 8.0 |
73 | Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX | 12.2 | 0.6 | 15.5 | 2021 | -3.2 | 7.1 |
74 | Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA | 12.1 | 1.2 | 20.9 | 2021 | -8.8 | 6.5 |
75 | San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX | 12.1 | 0.9 | 15.8 | 2021 | -3.7 | 7.3 |
76 | Greensboro-High Point, NC | 12.1 | 1.2 | 14.5 | 2021 | -2.4 | 7.0 |
77 | Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN | 12.0 | 0.8 | 15.4 | 2021 | -3.4 | 7.0 |
78 | Macon-Bibb County, GA | 12.0 | 2.1 | 12.0 | 2025 | 0.0 | 8.4 |
79 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA | 11.9 | 1.1 | 16.9 | 2021 | -5.0 | 4.7 |
80 | Syracuse, NY | 11.9 | 1.0 | 13.3 | 2021 | -1.4 | 6.9 |
81 | York-Hanover, PA | 11.9 | 1.3 | 13.0 | 2021 | -1.1 | 8.1 |
82 | Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR | 11.9 | 1.3 | 17.0 | 2021 | -5.1 | 7.2 |
83 | Canton-Massillon, OH | 11.6 | 1.9 | 12.6 | 2021 | -1.0 | 6.8 |
84 | Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA | 11.6 | 2.0 | 15.2 | 2021 | -3.7 | 6.5 |
85 | Savannah, GA | 11.5 | 1.4 | 12.1 | 2023 | -0.6 | 6.2 |
86 | Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI | 11.5 | 0.5 | 19.8 | 2021 | -8.4 | 7.0 |
87 | Appleton, WI | 11.5 | 1.4 | 14.7 | 2021 | -3.3 | 6.9 |
88 | Green Bay, WI | 11.4 | 1.4 | 14.4 | 2021 | -2.9 | 6.3 |
89 | Killeen-Temple, TX | 11.4 | 1.2 | 11.4 | 2025 | 0.0 | 7.1 |
90 | Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL | 11.3 | 1.7 | 14.6 | 2022 | -3.3 | 2.6 |
91 | Utica-Rome, NY | 11.3 | 1.7 | 12.2 | 2021 | -0.9 | 7.2 |
92 | Eugene-Springfield, OR | 11.2 | 1.6 | 17.4 | 2021 | -6.2 | 4.6 |
93 | Albuquerque, NM | 11.0 | 1.0 | 18.5 | 2021 | -7.6 | 6.4 |
94 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC | 10.9 | 1.4 | 10.9 | 2025 | 0.0 | 7.0 |
95 | Rochester, NY | 10.9 | 0.9 | 15.3 | 2021 | -4.4 | 6.3 |
96 | Reading, PA | 10.8 | 1.1 | 13.1 | 2021 | -2.3 | 6.4 |
97 | Lincoln, NE | 10.8 | 1.5 | 13.5 | 2021 | -2.7 | 7.7 |
98 | Columbia, SC | 10.7 | 1.0 | 12.9 | 2024 | -2.2 | 7.1 |
99 | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA | 10.6 | 0.7 | 15.8 | 2021 | -5.1 | 6.6 |
100 | Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV | 10.6 | 0.7 | 13.3 | 2021 | -2.7 | 5.9 |
101 | Vallejo, CA | 10.6 | 1.4 | 13.1 | 2022 | -2.6 | 5.7 |
102 | Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, VA-NC | 10.5 | 0.7 | 13.8 | 2021 | -3.3 | 6.0 |
103 | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA | 10.5 | 0.5 | 13.6 | 2021 | -3.1 | 4.7 |
104 | Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA | 10.5 | 1.2 | 15.7 | 2021 | -5.2 | 4.1 |
105 | Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY | 10.5 | 1.0 | 19.2 | 2021 | -8.7 | 5.0 |
106 | Omaha, NE-IA | 10.4 | 0.9 | 17.0 | 2021 | -6.5 | 5.5 |
107 | El Paso, TX | 10.4 | 1.2 | 10.4 | 2025 | 0.0 | 7.5 |
108 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH | 10.3 | 0.9 | 13.9 | 2021 | -3.6 | 6.1 |
109 | Tallahassee, FL | 10.2 | 1.5 | 17.6 | 2021 | -7.4 | 5.1 |
110 | Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV | 10.2 | 1.9 | 11.3 | 2022 | -1.1 | 4.8 |
111 | Billings, MT | 10.2 | 1.8 | 10.4 | 2021 | -0.3 | 6.2 |
112 | Flint, MI | 10.0 | 1.4 | 11.5 | 2022 | -1.5 | 4.8 |
113 | Lexington-Fayette, KY | 10.0 | 1.1 | 13.9 | 2021 | -3.9 | 5.3 |
114 | Iowa City, IA | 10.0 | 1.5 | 18.5 | 2021 | -8.5 | 4.0 |
115 | St. George, UT | 9.8 | 2.0 | 15.8 | 2022 | -5.9 | -1.8 |
116 | Columbus, GA-AL | 9.8 | 1.7 | 12.0 | 2022 | -2.2 | 6.5 |
117 | McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 9.8 | 1.4 | 10.1 | 2021 | -0.3 | 3.6 |
118 | Columbia, MO | 9.7 | 2.1 | 10.3 | 2023 | -0.6 | 4.7 |
119 | Oklahoma City, OK | 9.7 | 0.8 | 12.3 | 2021 | -2.7 | 5.2 |
120 | Tulsa, OK | 9.7 | 0.6 | 12.5 | 2021 | -2.8 | 5.3 |
121 | Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY | 9.7 | 0.8 | 14.3 | 2021 | -4.6 | 6.2 |
122 | Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL | 9.6 | 1.5 | 12.1 | 2021 | -2.5 | 2.8 |
123 | Fargo, ND-MN | 9.5 | 1.6 | 13.4 | 2021 | -3.9 | 5.4 |
124 | Stockton-Lodi, CA | 9.4 | 1.2 | 11.4 | 2021 | -1.9 | 5.2 |
125 | Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC | 9.4 | 1.4 | 9.4 | 2025 | 0.0 | 5.6 |
126 | South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI | 9.1 | 1.6 | 10.9 | 2021 | -1.8 | 4.8 |
127 | Erie, PA | 8.7 | 1.5 | 9.0 | 2023 | -0.3 | 4.1 |
128 | Gulfport-Biloxi, MS | 8.7 | 1.5 | 8.7 | 2025 | 0.0 | 5.6 |
129 | Memphis, TN-MS-AR | 8.6 | 0.6 | 11.7 | 2021 | -3.1 | 5.0 |
130 | Kennewick-Richland, WA | 8.5 | 1.6 | 11.6 | 2023 | -3.1 | 4.9 |
131 | Peoria, IL | 8.4 | 1.2 | 12.9 | 2021 | -4.5 | 4.2 |
132 | St. Cloud, MN | 8.3 | 1.3 | 11.2 | 2024 | -2.9 | 3.8 |
133 | Baton Rouge, LA | 8.1 | 1.1 | 8.3 | 2021 | -0.1 | 4.6 |
134 | Rockford, IL | 8.1 | 1.4 | 11.6 | 2021 | -3.5 | 4.8 |
135 | Oshkosh-Neenah, WI | 8.1 | 1.5 | 12.1 | 2022 | -4.0 | 2.3 |
136 | Modesto, CA | 8.1 | 1.3 | 8.7 | 2021 | -0.6 | 4.2 |
137 | Urban Honolulu, HI | 8.1 | 0.7 | 10.9 | 2021 | -2.8 | 4.2 |
138 | Anchorage, AK | 8.1 | 1.2 | 12.1 | 2021 | -4.1 | 3.9 |
139 | Mobile, AL | 8.1 | 1.4 | 9.4 | 2023 | -1.3 | 3.6 |
140 | Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL | 7.7 | 1.2 | 10.9 | 2022 | -3.2 | 4.2 |
141 | Salinas, CA | 7.3 | 1.1 | 12.1 | 2022 | -4.7 | 2.4 |
142 | Merced, CA | 7.2 | 1.5 | 7.2 | 2025 | 0.0 | 2.9 |
143 | Wichita, KS | 6.7 | 0.9 | 9.0 | 2021 | -2.4 | 3.4 |
144 | Bakersfield-Delano, CA | 6.6 | 0.8 | 9.0 | 2021 | -2.4 | 3.1 |
145 | Elkhart-Goshen, IN | 6.5 | 2.0 | 6.5 | 2025 | 0.0 | 2.5 |
146 | Grand Forks, ND-MN | 5.8 | 1.8 | 7.3 | 2021 | -1.5 | 1.5 |
147 | Shreveport-Bossier City, LA | 5.7 | 1.2 | 7.6 | 2024 | -1.9 | 2.7 |
148 | Visalia, CA | 5.6 | 1.2 | 7.2 | 2021 | -1.6 | 2.2 |
Metro Areas Shown With 2025 Data Only
These 75 metros have 2025 estimates but can’t be fully compared to earlier years. The right column explains why for each one
Rank | Metro Area | 2025 WFH Share (%) | MOE (± pts) | Reason For Exclusion |
1 | Wilmington, NC | 21.2 | 1.7 | Total workers changed +41.1% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
2 | Bend, OR | 18.0 | 2.5 | Total workers changed +35.4% from 2019 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
3 | Portland-South Portland, ME | 15.7 | 1.4 | Total workers changed +4.0% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
4 | Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL | 15.6 | 1.7 | Total workers changed +6.9% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
5 | Bloomington, IL | 15.4 | 2.3 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
6 | Ogden, UT | 14.6 | 1.2 | Total workers changed -6.1% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
7 | Gainesville, GA | 14.3 | 2.2 | Total workers changed +4.2% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
8 | Lawrence, KS | 14.3 | 3.0 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
9 | Amherst Town-Northampton, MA | 14.0 | 2.1 | No pre-2023 estimate published (new metro or below publication threshold) |
10 | Tucson, AZ | 13.9 | 1.3 | Total workers changed +4.0% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
11 | Asheville, NC | 13.7 | 1.6 | Total workers changed -10.7% from 2022 to 2024, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
12 | Gainesville, FL | 13.7 | 2.0 | Total workers changed +4.6% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
13 | Medford, OR | 13.2 | 2.7 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
14 | Cleveland, OH | 13.0 | 0.7 | Total workers changed +5.4% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change); Area code changed from 17460 to 17410 in 2023 |
15 | Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT | 12.7 | 0.9 | Total workers changed -5.9% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
16 | Knoxville, TN | 12.5 | 1.0 | Total workers changed +5.7% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
17 | Greenville-Anderson-Greer, SC | 12.4 | 1.1 | Total workers changed +4.9% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
18 | Worcester, MA | 12.3 | 0.9 | Total workers changed -10.3% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
19 | Athens-Clarke County, GA | 12.2 | 1.9 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
20 | Dover, DE | 12.1 | 2.9 | No pre-2023 estimate published (new metro or below publication threshold) |
21 | Flagstaff, AZ | 12.0 | 1.8 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
22 | Winston-Salem, NC | 11.9 | 1.2 | Total workers changed +6.1% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
23 | Wausau, WI | 11.9 | 2.2 | Total workers changed -13.2% from 2022 to 2024, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
24 | Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC | 11.8 | 1.9 | Total workers changed -27.1% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
25 | Lansing-East Lansing, MI | 11.8 | 1.0 | Total workers changed -12.5% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
26 | Huntsville, AL | 11.8 | 1.1 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
27 | Jacksonville, NC | 11.7 | 2.3 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
28 | Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood, MI | 11.5 | 0.9 | Total workers changed +6.6% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
29 | Birmingham, AL | 11.3 | 1.0 | Total workers changed +4.0% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
30 | Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA | 11.1 | 1.2 | Total workers changed -4.0% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
31 | Idaho Falls, ID | 11.0 | 2.3 | Total workers changed +6.7% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
32 | New Haven, CT | 10.9 | 1.1 | Total workers changed -32.1% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
33 | Norwich-New London-Willimantic, CT | 10.7 | 1.5 | Total workers changed +4.7% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
34 | Glens Falls, NY | 10.4 | 2.0 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
35 | Ames, IA | 10.4 | 2.0 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
36 | Waterbury-Shelton, CT | 10.3 | 1.4 | No pre-2023 estimate published (new metro or below publication threshold) |
37 | Springfield, IL | 9.7 | 1.5 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
38 | Springfield, MA | 9.6 | 1.4 | Total workers changed -33.1% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
39 | Youngstown-Warren, OH | 9.6 | 1.4 | Total workers changed -21.6% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
40 | La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN | 9.6 | 1.6 | Total workers changed +20.8% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
41 | Niles, MI | 9.5 | 2.3 | No pre-2023 estimate published (new metro or below publication threshold) |
42 | Sheboygan, WI | 9.4 | 2.1 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
43 | Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR | 9.3 | 1.2 | Total workers changed +4.9% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
44 | Reno, NV | 9.2 | 0.9 | Total workers changed +12.8% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
45 | Springfield, MO | 9.2 | 1.3 | Total workers changed +5.7% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
46 | College Station-Bryan, TX | 9.1 | 1.6 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
47 | Racine-Mount Pleasant, WI | 9.0 | 1.8 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
48 | Topeka, KS | 9.0 | 1.7 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
49 | Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA | 8.9 | 1.8 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
50 | Bangor, ME | 8.8 | 1.7 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
51 | Jackson, MS | 8.8 | 1.1 | Total workers changed +6.1% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
52 | New Orleans-Metairie, LA | 8.7 | 0.7 | Total workers changed -22.4% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
53 | Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ | 8.6 | 1.2 | Total workers changed +37.0% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
54 | Florence, SC | 8.3 | 2.4 | No pre-2023 estimate published (new metro or below publication threshold) |
55 | Longview, TX | 8.3 | 1.7 | No pre-2023 estimate published (new metro or below publication threshold) |
56 | Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA | 8.3 | 1.8 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
57 | Toledo, OH | 8.2 | 1.1 | Total workers changed -6.6% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
58 | Fresno, CA | 8.2 | 0.9 | Total workers changed +11.5% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
59 | Mankato, MN | 8.2 | 1.7 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
60 | Spartanburg, SC | 8.1 | 1.6 | Total workers changed +9.4% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
61 | Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN | 7.9 | 1.3 | Total workers changed +6.6% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
62 | Binghamton, NY | 7.7 | 1.3 | Total workers changed -4.8% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
63 | Fort Wayne, IN | 7.6 | 1.1 | Total workers changed +6.7% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
64 | Lubbock, TX | 7.5 | 1.3 | Total workers changed +10.4% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
65 | Montgomery, AL | 7.1 | 1.5 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
66 | Lafayette, LA | 6.8 | 1.1 | Total workers changed -7.8% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
67 | Dothan, AL | 6.7 | 1.4 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
68 | Fayetteville, NC | 6.7 | 0.9 | Total workers changed -22.7% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
69 | Altoona, PA | 6.3 | 1.8 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
70 | Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH | 5.9 | 1.1 | Total workers changed +6.0% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
71 | Evansville, IN | 5.5 | 1.2 | Total workers changed -14.2% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
72 | Yakima, WA | 5.4 | 1.3 | No published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate (metro did not meet the 65,000-population publication threshold that year) |
73 | Corpus Christi, TX | 5.1 | 1.0 | Total workers changed +8.4% from 2022 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
74 | Wichita Falls, TX | 5.0 | 1.4 | No 2023 or 2024 estimate to test boundary consistency |
75 | Terre Haute, IN | 4.7 | 1.4 | Total workers changed -8.3% from 2021 to 2023, beyond the boundary-consistency threshold (likely 2023 boundary change) |
Methodology
Source
All figures come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates, Table B08301 (Means of Transportation to Work). The 2025 estimates were released on October 29, 2026. The ACS publishes 1-year estimates for geographies with populations of at least 65,000.
What the Measure Captures
The work-from-home figures are based on the ACS question asking how workers usually got to work during the week before they responded. Each respondent reports one method, the one they used most often that week. Workers who split the week between home and an office are counted by whichever they did more days. A hybrid worker who commuted three days and worked from home two is counted by their commute mode, not as working from home. These figures therefore understate hybrid arrangements.
The Census Bureau collects ACS responses throughout the year, so each annual estimate reflects responses gathered from January through December rather than a single week or point in time. The sample includes workers aged 16 and over who were at work during their reference week.
Variables
B08301_001E is total workers aged 16 and over. B08301_021E is workers who mainly worked from home during the week before they responded to the survey.
Calculations
Work-from-home share is 100 × workers who worked from home / total workers. The margin of error on that share follows the Census Bureau’s formula for a proportion. The margin of error on a change between two years is the square root of the sum of the squared margins for each year, the Census Bureau’s standard approximation for the difference of two independent estimates.
A change is reported as statistically significant when its absolute value exceeds its margin of error, which is equivalent to a 90% confidence test. Rankings use point estimates, so two areas with overlapping margins may not be statistically different from each other even if they appear in different positions.
Metro Area Classification
Metros are placed in the main ranking table only when two conditions are met. First, the metro has a published 2019 ACS 1-year estimate to serve as a pre-pandemic baseline. Second, its boundaries stayed consistent through the 2023 federal metro-area reclassification, judged by whether its total worker count moved by no more than 4% per year across the change. The remaining 75 metros are shown in the second table with 2025 data only. The reason each is excluded (missing 2019 estimate or boundary change) is listed next to it.
Metros Missing From the 2025 Release
46 metros had a published 2024 ACS 1-year estimate but no 2025 estimate for this table, so they aren’t ranked here: Amarillo, TX; Auburn-Opelika, AL; Barnstable Town, MA; Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX; Brownsville-Harlingen, TX; Champaign-Urbana, IL; Charlottesville, VA; Chico, CA; Clarksville, TN-KY; Durham-Chapel Hill, NC; Eau Claire, WI; Enid, OK; Fond du Lac, WI; Fort Smith, AR-OK; Helena, MT; Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal, SC; Homosassa Springs, FL; Janesville-Beloit, WI; Jefferson City, MO; Kahului-Wailuku, HI; Kenosha, WI; Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ; Laredo, TX; Lawton, OK; Lynchburg, VA; Manhattan, KS; Missoula, MT; Muncie, IN; Napa, CA; Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater, WA; Port St. Lucie, FL; Punta Gorda, FL; Redding, CA; Roanoke, VA; Saginaw, MI; Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ; Sioux Falls, SD-MN; Springfield, OH; State College, PA; Texarkana, TX-AR; Traverse City, MI; Waco, TX; Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA; Williamsport, PA; Winchester, VA-WV; Yuba City, CA.
Exclusions
Puerto Rico and all metros in Puerto Rico are excluded. Micropolitan statistical areas, which have fewer than 50,000 residents, are also excluded.
For Journalists
The full Excel workbooks with every year’s data, all margins of error, and live-formula calculations are available on request. Email info@founderreports.com.