Austin, TX vs Bakersfield, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Austin, TX outspends Bakersfield, CA by a wide margin per resident — $21,772 versus $11,576, a 88% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Austin, TX holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 75/100 (grade B) against 56/100 (grade C) for Bakersfield, CA — a 19-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Bakersfield, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Austin, TX carries $1,229 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Austin, TX at $1,801 per resident and in Bakersfield, CA at $741.
On the revenue side both lean hardest on intergovernmental transfers — 18% of total revenue in Austin, TX and 100% in Bakersfield, CA.
Summary
Austin spends 88.1% more per capita than Bakersfield ($10,196/person difference). Austin, TX has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (B, 75/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $0 | $1 |
| Sales Tax | $526 | $20 |
| Income Tax | $1,465 | $1,909 |
| Intergovernmental | $14,031 | $3,862 |
| Charges & Fees | $3,247 | $1,024 |
| Other | $5,645 | $1,915 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $634 | $0 |
| Education | $51 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $1,837 | $840 |
| Health | $517 | $0 |
| Hospitals | $664 | $425 |
| Parks & Recreation | $1,801 | $741 |
| Housing | $3,741 | $3,391 |
| Sewerage | $865 | $265 |
| Utilities | $3,264 | $2,679 |
| Other | $8,399 | $3,234 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.