Omaha, NE vs Bakersfield, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Bakersfield, CA and Omaha, NE spend within 3.5% of each other per resident — $11,576 versus $11,180 — so on the headline spending-per-capita measure the two cities are effectively neck and neck.
Omaha, NE holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 90/100 (grade A) against 56/100 (grade C) for Bakersfield, CA — a 34-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. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Omaha, NE at $742 per resident and in Bakersfield, CA at $741.
They also fund themselves differently: other revenue is the largest single revenue source in Omaha, NE at 17% of total revenue, whereas Bakersfield, CA relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 100%.
Summary
Bakersfield spends 3.4% more per capita than Omaha ($396/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 | $624 | $1 |
| Sales Tax | $373 | $20 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $1,909 |
| Intergovernmental | $2,622 | $3,862 |
| Charges & Fees | $0 | $1,024 |
| Other | $4,672 | $1,915 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Highways & Roads | $319 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $1,521 | $840 |
| Health | $456 | $0 |
| Hospitals | $0 | $425 |
| Parks & Recreation | $742 | $741 |
| Housing | $3,045 | $3,391 |
| Sewerage | $0 | $265 |
| Utilities | $581 | $2,679 |
| Other | $4,516 | $3,234 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.