Bakersfield, CA vs San Francisco, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
San Francisco, CA outspends Bakersfield, CA by a wide margin per resident — $184,131 versus $11,576, a 1491% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Bakersfield, CA holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 56/100 (grade C) against 48/100 (grade D) for San Francisco, CA — a 8-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Bakersfield, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while San Francisco, CA carries $2,031 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Bakersfield, CA at $741 per resident and in San Francisco, CA at $4,119.
On the revenue side both lean hardest on intergovernmental transfers — 100% of total revenue in Bakersfield, CA and 7% in San Francisco, CA.
Summary
San Francisco spends 93.7% more per capita than Bakersfield ($172,555/person difference). Bakersfield, CA has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (C, 56/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $1 | $148 |
| Sales Tax | $20 | $3,028 |
| Income Tax | $1,909 | $269 |
| Intergovernmental | $3,862 | $19,762 |
| Charges & Fees | $1,024 | $7,961 |
| Other | $1,915 | $18,918 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $0 | $3,351 |
| Fire Protection | $0 | $2,281 |
| Public Welfare | $840 | $2,203 |
| Health | $0 | $1,911 |
| Hospitals | $425 | $6,939 |
| Parks & Recreation | $741 | $4,119 |
| Housing | $3,391 | $9,315 |
| Sewerage | $265 | $1,423 |
| Utilities | $2,679 | $21,190 |
| Interest on Debt | $0 | $22,798 |
| General Admin | $0 | $14,899 |
| Other | $3,234 | $93,702 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.