San Francisco, CA vs Fort Worth, TX
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
San Francisco, CA outspends Fort Worth, TX by a wide margin per resident — $184,131 versus $15,939, a 1055% 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 48/100 (grade D) for San Francisco, CA — a 15-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
On debt, Fort Worth, TX carries the lighter load at $1,921 per resident versus $2,031 for San Francisco, CA. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in San Francisco, CA at $4,119 per resident and in Fort Worth, TX at $708.
On the revenue side both lean hardest on intergovernmental transfers — 7% of total revenue in San Francisco, CA and 15% in Fort Worth, TX.
Summary
San Francisco spends 1055.2% more per capita than Fort Worth ($168,192/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 | $148 | $0 |
| Sales Tax | $3,028 | $198 |
| Income Tax | $269 | $851 |
| Intergovernmental | $19,762 | $4,002 |
| Charges & Fees | $7,961 | $3,594 |
| Other | $18,918 | $3,439 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $3,351 | $0 |
| Fire Protection | $2,281 | $156 |
| Highways & Roads | $0 | $317 |
| Public Welfare | $2,203 | $869 |
| Health | $1,911 | $235 |
| Hospitals | $6,939 | $1,680 |
| Parks & Recreation | $4,119 | $708 |
| Housing | $9,315 | $4,217 |
| Sewerage | $1,423 | $267 |
| Utilities | $21,190 | $2,674 |
| Interest on Debt | $22,798 | $0 |
| General Admin | $14,899 | $0 |
| Other | $93,702 | $4,817 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.