Best States for Social and Community Service Managers: California Ranks #1, but Washington and New York Pay More

Across states, the numbers show that high salaries, larger employment counts, and higher LaborCove Geography Scores do not always move together for social and community service managers. California illustrates this tradeoff. It ranks #1 in the LaborCove state results with the highest Geography Score among the supplied states, and it has the largest employment count at 33,510. Its median salary of $83,210 is modestly above the national median of $80,390. By contrast, several other top-10 states have higher median salaries than California but lower LaborCove rankings or smaller employment counts, underscoring that the top state ranking is not simply a function of salary. The national projected employment growth rate of 6.4% for this occupation provides additional context for these state comparisons, but it applies to the occupation nationally rather than to any specific state. Within that national picture, the top-ranked states in the LaborCove data combine differing levels of compensation, employment, and Geography Scores, giving social and community service managers multiple ways to align state choices with what they value most in the data.

LaborCove’s national benchmark for social and community service managers shows a median annual salary of $80,390 and total employment of 209,330. Against this backdrop, the top 10 states reveal different combinations of pay levels and employment scale. California, ranked #1, has a median salary of $83,210 and employment of 33,510, giving it the largest employment count among the supplied states. Its median salary is above the national median. New York, ranked #2, combines a median salary of $95,980 with employment of 19,340, so it has a higher median salary than both California and the national figure while having a smaller employment count than California but a substantial share of the national total. Other top-10 states also sit above the national median salary. Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, Alaska, and Virginia each show median salaries higher than $80,390, though their employment counts are lower than California’s and, in several cases, lower than New York’s. Massachusetts has a median salary of $81,380, which is above the national median, while Texas at $76,520 and Ohio at $73,890 fall below the national salary benchmark within this top-10 group.

Within the top 10 list, salaries vary notably across states. Washington reports the highest median salary among the supplied states at $103,000. This level is higher than the median salaries in California, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Alaska, Virginia, Massachusetts, Texas, and Ohio, as well as above the national median of $80,390. New York’s median salary of $95,980 is higher than California’s $83,210 and the national median, while New Jersey at $95,290, Colorado at $97,440, and Alaska at $98,370 all report median salaries above California as well. Virginia’s $94,970 and Massachusetts’s $81,380 are also above the national median, though Massachusetts has a lower median salary than California. Texas and Ohio mark the lower end of the salary spectrum within this group, with median salaries of $76,520 and $73,890 respectively. Both are below the national median of $80,390, highlighting that a top-10 LaborCove ranking does not require a state’s salary level to exceed the national figure.

Employment counts show a different ordering than salaries or overall rankings. California’s employment of 33,510 is the largest among the states listed. New York’s 19,340 is lower than California’s but still substantial relative to the national employment total of 209,330. Among the remaining states, Texas stands out for employment with 13,460 roles, which is smaller than California’s and New York’s counts but higher than those reported for Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, Alaska, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Washington’s employment of 3,650 is lower than New York’s and Texas’s, while New Jersey’s 5,530 surpasses Colorado’s 2,800 and Virginia’s 3,300. At the smaller end of the supplied employment data, Alaska has 830 social and community service manager positions, and Colorado has 2,800. Ohio’s employment is not supplied in this dataset, so no direct employment comparison involving Ohio can be made beyond its presence in the top-10 ranking list.

LaborCove’s Geography Scores provide an integrated view of how states rank for social and community service managers. California leads the list at rank #1 with a Geography Score of 72.71. New York follows at rank #2 with a score of 68.35. Further down the rankings, Washington holds rank #3 with a Geography Score of 57.80, New Jersey is #4 at 54.09, and Colorado is #5 at 52.78. Alaska, with a median salary higher than California’s, appears at rank #6 with a Geography Score of 50.42, illustrating that a higher salary does not automatically correspond to a higher Geography Score. Virginia (rank #7, score 50.04), Massachusetts (rank #8, score 47.96), Ohio (rank #9, score 46.89), and Texas (rank #10, score 46.59) round out the top 10. Texas has a lower Geography Score than Ohio by this measure, and both rank below Massachusetts even though Massachusetts’s median salary is closer to the national median than several of the higher-paying states. These patterns reinforce that the Geography Score reflects more than salary alone.

The national projected employment growth rate of 6.4% for social and community service managers offers a macro-level context for the state numbers. This projection applies to the occupation nationally rather than to individual states. Within that national frame, the leading LaborCove states demonstrate that there is no single profile that defines a top-ranked geography. Some states, such as Washington, New York, Colorado, Alaska, and New Jersey, stand out for higher median salaries, while others, like California and Texas, feature higher employment counts in the supplied data. Geography Scores order these states from #1 through #10, but the underlying salary and employment patterns differ from state to state. For social and community service managers making location decisions, the data show that the top 10 states combine varying levels of compensation, employment counts, and Geography Scores relative to national figures. Comparing these concrete metrics can help clarify which state profiles best align with an individual’s preferences for pay, scale of employment, or position in LaborCove’s rankings.

LaborCove’s Best States rankings for social and community service managers are built from structured labor‑market data tied to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program, using observations from May 2025 as the reference period. The 2026 report year is a product year for this Insight and does not change that underlying 2025-05 observation window. For this occupation (SOC 11-9151), LaborCove starts from national figures for median annual salary, employment, and a separate national projected employment growth rate. These national growth figures are projections for the occupation as a whole and are not OEWS observations or geographic forecasts, so they are not assigned to individual states. At the state level, LaborCove’s geography data for this article includes median annual salary, employment counts where supplied, and a LaborCove Geography Score that underpins the rankings. The Geography Score is a composite LaborCove measure; the internal weighting of salary, employment, or other inputs is not disclosed in this evidence, so this article treats the score as a summary indicator rather than attributing it to any single factor. The rankings should be interpreted as a structured comparison of how states perform on these measures, not as predictions about an individual’s likelihood of finding work or advancing in a particular market. Social and community service managers should weigh these rankings against their own priorities, such as preferred regions, employer types, or non-labor factors that are outside the scope of LaborCove’s data.