Tucson, AZ vs Bakersfield, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Tucson, AZ spends 36% more per resident than Bakersfield, CA: $15,759 against $11,576. That gap is large enough to show up across most functional budget categories below.
Bakersfield, CA edges Tucson, AZ on the Fiscal Health Score by 1 points — 56/100 (grade C) to 55/100 (grade C). At a margin this narrow the grade is close enough that the factor-level detail matters more than the composite.
Bakersfield, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Tucson, AZ carries $1,540 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Tucson, AZ at $1,229 per resident and in Bakersfield, CA at $741.
On the revenue side both lean hardest on intergovernmental transfers — 100% of total revenue in Tucson, AZ and 100% in Bakersfield, CA.
Summary
Tucson spends 36.1% more per capita than Bakersfield ($4,183/person difference). Bakersfield, CA has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (C, 56/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $5 | $1 |
| Sales Tax | $309 | $20 |
| Income Tax | $1,107 | $1,909 |
| Intergovernmental | $23,276 | $3,862 |
| Charges & Fees | $4,534 | $1,024 |
| Other | $952 | $1,915 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $330 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $1,181 | $840 |
| Hospitals | $1,314 | $425 |
| Parks & Recreation | $1,229 | $741 |
| Housing | $3,091 | $3,391 |
| Sewerage | $0 | $265 |
| Utilities | $3,555 | $2,679 |
| Interest on Debt | $1,735 | $0 |
| Other | $3,322 | $3,234 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.