Bakersfield, CA vs Tulsa, OK
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Bakersfield, CA outspends Tulsa, OK by a wide margin per resident — $11,576 versus $5,250, a 120% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
On the CitySpend Fiscal Health Score the two are level: Bakersfield, CA and Tulsa, OK both land at 56/100 (grade C and C respectively), so the deciding factors sit in the underlying six-factor breakdown rather than the rolled-up grade.
Neither city reports outstanding debt per resident in its current Census filing, which removes debt service as a point of difference between them. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Bakersfield, CA leads with parks and recreation at $741 per resident, while Tulsa, OK leads with health at $762.
Summary
Bakersfield spends 120.5% more per capita than Tulsa ($6,326/person difference). Both cities share the same Fiscal Health Score.
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $1 | $0 |
| Sales Tax | $20 | $97 |
| Income Tax | $1,909 | $0 |
| Intergovernmental | $3,862 | $0 |
| Charges & Fees | $1,024 | $0 |
| Other | $1,915 | $53 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $0 | $628 |
| Fire Protection | $0 | $196 |
| Highways & Roads | $0 | $257 |
| Public Welfare | $840 | $86 |
| Health | $0 | $762 |
| Hospitals | $425 | $0 |
| Parks & Recreation | $741 | $154 |
| Housing | $3,391 | $350 |
| Sewerage | $265 | $27 |
| Utilities | $2,679 | $41 |
| Other | $3,234 | $2,748 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.