Oakland, CA vs Omaha, NE
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Oakland, CA outspends Omaha, NE by a wide margin per resident — $30,055 versus $11,180, a 169% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Omaha, NE holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 90/100 (grade A) against 72/100 (grade B) for Oakland, CA — a 18-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
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: Oakland, CA leads with health at $1,016 per resident, while Omaha, NE leads with parks and recreation at $742.
They also fund themselves differently: intergovernmental transfers is the largest single revenue source in Oakland, CA at 100% of total revenue, whereas Omaha, NE relies most on other revenue at 17%.
Summary
Oakland spends 168.8% more per capita than Omaha ($18,874/person difference). Omaha, NE has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (A, 90/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $0 | $624 |
| Sales Tax | $522 | $373 |
| Intergovernmental | $42,277 | $2,622 |
| Other | $4,337 | $4,672 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $1 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $0 | $319 |
| Public Welfare | $2,426 | $1,521 |
| Health | $1,016 | $456 |
| Hospitals | $2,498 | $0 |
| Parks & Recreation | $955 | $742 |
| Housing | $7,811 | $3,045 |
| Sewerage | $1,417 | $0 |
| Utilities | $0 | $581 |
| Other | $13,929 | $4,516 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.