Fort Worth, TX vs Fresno, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Fresno, CA outspends Fort Worth, TX by a wide margin per resident — $43,387 versus $15,939, a 172% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Fort Worth, TX holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 63/100 (grade C) against 50/100 (grade C) for Fresno, CA — a 13-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Fresno, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Fort Worth, TX carries $1,921 per resident. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Fort Worth, TX leads with parks and recreation at $708 per resident, while Fresno, CA leads with education at $3,942.
They also fund themselves differently: intergovernmental transfers is the largest single revenue source in Fort Worth, TX at 15% of total revenue, whereas Fresno, CA relies most on other revenue at 19%.
Summary
Fresno spends 63.3% more per capita than Fort Worth ($27,448/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 | $337 |
| Sales Tax | $198 | $19 |
| Income Tax | $851 | $501 |
| Intergovernmental | $4,002 | -$4,470 |
| Charges & Fees | $3,594 | $11 |
| Other | $3,439 | $2,070 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $0 | $3,261 |
| Fire Protection | $156 | $568 |
| Highways & Roads | $317 | $0 |
| Education | $0 | $3,942 |
| Public Welfare | $869 | $1,946 |
| Health | $235 | $599 |
| Hospitals | $1,680 | $0 |
| Parks & Recreation | $708 | $76 |
| Housing | $4,217 | $2,856 |
| Sewerage | $267 | $0 |
| Utilities | $2,674 | $15,340 |
| Interest on Debt | $0 | $255 |
| Other | $4,817 | $14,545 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.