Tulsa, OK vs Bakersfield, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Bakersfield, CA outspends Tulsa, OK by a wide margin per resident — $11,576 versus $5,250, a 120% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
On the CitySpend Fiscal Health Score the two are level: Tulsa, OK and Bakersfield, CA both land at 56/100 (grade C and C respectively), so the deciding factors sit in the underlying six-factor breakdown rather than the rolled-up grade.
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: Tulsa, OK leads with health at $762 per resident, while Bakersfield, CA leads with parks and recreation at $741.
Summary
Bakersfield spends 54.6% more per capita than Tulsa ($6,326/person difference). Both cities share the same Fiscal Health Score.
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $0 | $1 |
| Sales Tax | $97 | $20 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $1,909 |
| Intergovernmental | $0 | $3,862 |
| Charges & Fees | $0 | $1,024 |
| Other | $53 | $1,915 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $628 | $0 |
| Fire Protection | $196 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $257 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $86 | $840 |
| Health | $762 | $0 |
| Hospitals | $0 | $425 |
| Parks & Recreation | $154 | $741 |
| Housing | $350 | $3,391 |
| Sewerage | $27 | $265 |
| Utilities | $41 | $2,679 |
| Other | $2,748 | $3,234 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.