San Francisco, CA vs Tucson, AZ
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
San Francisco, CA outspends Tucson, AZ by a wide margin per resident — $184,131 versus $15,759, a 1068% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Tucson, AZ edges San Francisco, CA on the Fiscal Health Score by 7 points — 55/100 (grade C) to 48/100 (grade D). At a margin this narrow the grade is close enough that the factor-level detail matters more than the composite.
On debt, Tucson, AZ carries the lighter load at $1,540 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 Tucson, AZ at $1,229.
On the revenue side both lean hardest on intergovernmental transfers — 7% of total revenue in San Francisco, CA and 100% in Tucson, AZ.
Summary
San Francisco spends 1068.4% more per capita than Tucson ($168,372/person difference). Tucson, AZ has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (C, 55/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $148 | $5 |
| Sales Tax | $3,028 | $309 |
| Income Tax | $269 | $1,107 |
| Intergovernmental | $19,762 | $23,276 |
| Charges & Fees | $7,961 | $4,534 |
| Other | $18,918 | $952 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $3,351 | $0 |
| Fire Protection | $2,281 | $330 |
| Public Welfare | $2,203 | $1,181 |
| Health | $1,911 | $0 |
| Hospitals | $6,939 | $1,314 |
| Parks & Recreation | $4,119 | $1,229 |
| Housing | $9,315 | $3,091 |
| Sewerage | $1,423 | $0 |
| Utilities | $21,190 | $3,555 |
| Interest on Debt | $22,798 | $1,735 |
| General Admin | $14,899 | $0 |
| Other | $93,702 | $3,322 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.