Fort Worth, TX vs Bakersfield, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Fort Worth, TX spends 38% more per resident than Bakersfield, CA: $15,939 against $11,576. That gap is large enough to show up across most functional budget categories below.
Fort Worth, TX edges Bakersfield, CA on the Fiscal Health Score by 7 points — 63/100 (grade C) to 56/100 (grade C). At a margin this narrow the grade is close enough that the factor-level detail matters more than the composite.
Bakersfield, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Fort Worth, TX carries $1,921 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Fort Worth, TX at $708 per resident and in Bakersfield, CA at $741.
On the revenue side both lean hardest on intergovernmental transfers — 15% of total revenue in Fort Worth, TX and 100% in Bakersfield, CA.
Summary
Fort Worth spends 37.7% more per capita than Bakersfield ($4,363/person difference). Fort Worth, TX has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (C, 63/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $0 | $1 |
| Sales Tax | $198 | $20 |
| Income Tax | $851 | $1,909 |
| Intergovernmental | $4,002 | $3,862 |
| Charges & Fees | $3,594 | $1,024 |
| Other | $3,439 | $1,915 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $156 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $317 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $869 | $840 |
| Health | $235 | $0 |
| Hospitals | $1,680 | $425 |
| Parks & Recreation | $708 | $741 |
| Housing | $4,217 | $3,391 |
| Sewerage | $267 | $265 |
| Utilities | $2,674 | $2,679 |
| Other | $4,817 | $3,234 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.