(STACKER) – Historically high inflation has put a strain on municipal budgets, with the rising costs of labor, goods and services, and materials. In general, local governments made it through the pandemic relatively well, with the help of billions of dollars in federal aid. The economic aftermath, however, continues.
And some cities continue to struggle more than others, particularly those that are poorly managed.
Stacker listed the 50 worst-run cities in the United States using June 2023 data from WalletHub’s Best- and Worst-Run Cities in America. Cities are ranked by their overall operating efficiency, which is determined by the quality of services and total budget per capita.
Factors used to determine the overall quality of city services rank and score comprise weighted average scores in six key categories, including financial stability, education, health, safety, economy, and infrastructure and pollution. Scores for each of the six categories were evaluated based on 36 relevant metrics such as average life expectancy, violent crime rate, quality of roads, and Moody’s city credit rating.
#50. St. Louis, Missouri
– WalletHub rank: #100 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 141
– Financial stability rank: 141
– Education rank: 13
– Health rank: 148
– Safety rank: 147,
– Economy rank: 85
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 25
#49. Shreveport, Louisiana
– WalletHub rank: #101 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 146
– Financial stability rank: 143
– Education rank: 84
– Health rank: 133
– Safety rank: 127
– Economy rank: 140
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 101
#48. Kansas City, Missouri
– WalletHub rank: #102 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 125
– Financial stability rank: 110
– Education rank: 58
– Health rank: 112
– Safety rank: 136
– Economy rank: 55
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 105
#47. Dayton, Ohio
– WalletHub rank: #103 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 116
– Financial stability rank: 61
– Education rank: 112
– Health rank: 122
– Safety rank: 118
– Economy rank: 120
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 26
#46. San Jose, California
– WalletHub rank: #104 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 17
– Financial stability rank: 57
– Education rank: 23
– Health rank: 1
– Safety rank: 40
– Economy rank: 61
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 121
#45. Wilmington, Delaware
– WalletHub rank: #105 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 82
– Financial stability rank: 70
– Education rank: 38
– Health rank: 43
– Safety rank: 122
– Economy rank: 134
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 7
#44. Birmingham, Alabama
– WalletHub rank: #106 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 132
– Financial stability rank: 107
– Education rank: 43
– Health rank: 114
– Safety rank: 148
– Economy rank: 88
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 85
#43. Lubbock, Texas
– WalletHub rank: #107 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 119
– Financial stability rank: 69
– Education rank: 47
– Health rank: 106
– Safety rank: 132
– Economy rank: 91
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 146
#42. Cincinnati, Ohio
– WalletHub rank: #108 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 85
– Financial stability rank: 81
– Education rank: 94
– Health rank: 101
– Safety rank: 97
– Economy rank: 121
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 17
#41. Atlanta, Georgia
– WalletHub rank: #109 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 78
– Financial stability rank: 83
– Education rank: 98
– Health rank: 78
– Safety rank: 129
– Economy rank: 3
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 36
#40. Bakersfield, California
– WalletHub rank: #110 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 122
– Financial stability rank: 109
– Education rank: 80
– Health rank: 105
– Safety rank: 81
– Economy rank: 96
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 149
#39. Charleston, West Virginia
– WalletHub rank: #111 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 126
– Financial stability rank: 133
– Education rank: 21
– Health rank: 139
– Safety rank: 102
– Economy rank: 100
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 53
#38. Toledo, Ohio
– WalletHub rank: #112 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 142
– Financial stability rank: 127
– Education rank: 147
– Health rank: 144
– Safety rank: 100
– Economy rank: 127
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 122
#37. Fort Lauderdale, Florida
– WalletHub rank: #113 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 56
– Financial stability rank: 40
– Education rank: 50
– Health rank: 30
– Safety rank: 130
– Economy rank: 40
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 54
#36. New Orleans, Louisiana
– WalletHub rank: #114 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 136
– Financial stability rank: 125
– Education rank: 142
– Health rank: 110
– Safety rank: 137
– Economy rank: 133
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 24
#35. Seattle, Washington
– WalletHub rank: #115 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 11
– Financial stability rank: 25
– Education rank: 11
– Health rank: 13
– Safety rank: 83
– Economy rank: 14
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 23
#34. Modesto, California
– WalletHub rank: #116 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 103
– Financial stability rank: 121
– Education rank: 107
– Health rank: 95
– Safety rank: 63
– Economy rank: 74
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 100
#33. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
– WalletHub rank: #117 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 54
– Financial stability rank: 124
– Education rank: 17
– Health rank: 86
– Safety rank: 43
– Economy rank: 116
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 9
#32. Fresno, California
– WalletHub rank: #118 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 113
– Financial stability rank: 113
– Education rank: 70
– Health rank: 81
– Safety rank: 86
– Economy rank: 99
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 137
#31. Buffalo, New York
– WalletHub rank: #119 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 109
– Financial stability rank: 102
– Education rank: 133
– Health rank: 90
– Safety rank: 69
– Economy rank: 142
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 19
#30. Sacramento, California
– WalletHub rank: #120 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 92
– Financial stability rank: 117
– Education rank: 76
– Health rank: 55
– Safety rank: 79
– Economy rank: 97
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 103
#29. Stockton, California
– WalletHub rank: #121 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 139
– Financial stability rank: 140
– Education rank: 120
– Health rank: 88
– Safety rank: 115
– Economy rank: 107
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 147
#28. Knoxville, Tennessee
– WalletHub rank: #122 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 79
– Financial stability rank: 42
– Education rank: 34
– Health rank: 99
– Safety rank: 134
– Economy rank: 50
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 44
#27. Syracuse, New York
– WalletHub rank: #123 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 97
– Financial stability rank: 106
– Education rank: 113
– Health rank: 70
– Safety rank: 68
– Economy rank: 141
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 3
#26. Charlotte, North Carolina
– WalletHub rank: #124 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 40
– Financial stability rank: 13
– Education rank: 91
– Health rank: 52
– Safety rank: 78
– Economy rank: 8
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 123
#25. Nashville, Tennessee
– WalletHub rank: #125 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 121
– Financial stability rank: 103
– Education rank: 104
– Health rank: 123
– Safety rank: 128
– Economy rank: 32
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 90
#24. New Haven, Connecticut
– WalletHub rank: #126 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 131
– Financial stability rank: 144
– Education rank: 126
– Health rank: 58
– Safety rank: 103
– Economy rank: 136
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 13
#23. Cheyenne, Wyoming
– WalletHub rank: #127 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 83
– Financial stability rank: 15
– Education rank: 129
– Health rank: 92
– Safety rank: 49
– Economy rank: 28
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 71
#22. Los Angeles, California
– WalletHub rank: #128 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 59
– Financial stability rank: 96
– Education rank: 85
– Health rank: 21
– Safety rank: 53
– Economy rank: 119
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 87
#21. Long Beach, California
– WalletHub rank: #129 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 75
– Financial stability rank: 130
– Education rank: 32
– Health rank: 16
– Safety rank: 48
– Economy rank: 122
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 120
#20. Rochester, New York
– WalletHub rank: #130 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 86
– Financial stability rank: 105
– Education rank: 114
– Health rank: 31
– Safety rank: 92
– Economy rank: 132
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 2
#19. Salt Lake City, Utah
– WalletHub rank: #131 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 33
– Financial stability rank: 32
– Education rank: 22
– Health rank: 29
– Safety rank: 125
– Economy rank: 22
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 11
#18. Baltimore, Maryland
– WalletHub rank: #132 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 133
– Financial stability rank: 45
– Education rank: 148
– Health rank: 147
– Safety rank: 123
– Economy rank: 138
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 86
#17. Riverside, California
– WalletHub rank: #133 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 87
– Financial stability rank: 126
– Education rank: 57
– Health rank: 47
– Safety rank: 55
– Economy rank: 16
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 145
#16. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
– WalletHub rank: #134 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 127
– Financial stability rank: 132
– Education rank: 137
– Health rank: 124
– Safety rank: 72
– Economy rank: 114
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 59
#15. Denver, Colorado
– WalletHub rank: #135 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 63
– Financial stability rank: 49
– Education rank: 99
– Health rank: 53
– Safety rank: 99
– Economy rank: 37
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 80
#14. Memphis, Tennessee
– WalletHub rank: #136 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 143
– Financial stability rank: 58
– Education rank: 122
– Health rank: 143
– Safety rank: 149
– Economy rank: 108
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 131
#13. Yonkers, New York
– WalletHub rank: #137 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 53
– Financial stability rank: 137
– Education rank: 75
– Health rank: 5
– Safety rank: 4
– Economy rank: 139
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 45
#12. Chicago, Illinois
– WalletHub rank: #138 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 134
– Financial stability rank: 149
– Education rank: 67
– Health rank: 71
– Safety rank: 80
– Economy rank: 129
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 37
#11. Kansas City, Kansas
– WalletHub rank: #139 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 140
– Financial stability rank: 145
– Education rank: 145
– Health rank: 118
– Safety rank: 116
– Economy rank: 77
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 81
#10. Detroit, Michigan
– WalletHub rank: #140 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 149
– Financial stability rank: 148
– Education rank: 131
– Health rank: 146
– Safety rank: 141
– Economy rank: 145
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 127
#9. Tacoma, Washington
– WalletHub rank: #141 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 100
– Financial stability rank: 99
– Education rank: 89
– Health rank: 50
– Safety rank: 121
– Economy rank: 103
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 56
#8. Hartford, Connecticut
– WalletHub rank: #142 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 145
– Financial stability rank: 147
– Education rank: 132
– Health rank: 49
– Safety rank: 106
– Economy rank: 149
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 5
#7. Oakland, California
– WalletHub rank: #143 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 76
– Financial stability rank: 65
– Education rank: 60
– Health rank: 6
– Safety rank: 126
– Economy rank: 131
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 97
#6. Gulfport, Mississippi
– WalletHub rank: #144 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 96
– Financial stability rank: 128
– Education rank: 10
– Health rank: 97
– Safety rank: 82
– Economy rank: 98
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 125
#5. Flint, Michigan
– WalletHub rank: #145 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 144
– Financial stability rank: 17
– Education rank: 139
– Health rank: 137
– Safety rank: 124
– Economy rank: 144
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 57
#4. Cleveland, Ohio
– WalletHub rank: #146 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 137
– Financial stability rank: 114
– Education rank: 136
– Health rank: 107
– Safety rank: 139
– Economy rank: 137
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 91
#3. New York, New York
– WalletHub rank: #147 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 35
– Financial stability rank: 103
– Education rank: 27
– Health rank: 23
– Safety rank: 11
– Economy rank: 143
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 32
#2. Chattanooga, Tennessee
– WalletHub rank: #148 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 129
– Financial stability rank: 76
– Education rank: 92
– Health rank: 72
– Safety rank: 146
– Economy rank: 38
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 60
#1. San Francisco, California
– WalletHub rank: #149 of 149
– Quality of city services rank: 12
– Financial stability rank: 49
– Education rank: 12
– Health rank: 2
– Safety rank: 65
– Economy rank: 92
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 16
