Alaska vs Kentucky on USAspending: $3.49B vs $3.82B

A $330 million stock gap on a sixfold population gap

Kentucky’s $3.82B stacked total is about 1.09 times Alaska’s $3.49B. That is a thin lead on the dollar column. Kentucky’s Census count of 4,588,372 is about 6.2 times Alaska’s 740,133. The same USAspending.gov obligation series, read against those populations, produces spending per capita of $532.17 in Alaska and $142.10 in Kentucky. The smaller state carries more federal obligation per resident in this packet. The larger state carries more of the raw stock.

Do not treat $532.17 or $142.10 as Treasury cash per person. They are packet ratios of USAspending.gov obligations beside Census population where present. Outlays are a different series and can lag the obligation date. The comparison hub keeps the two states on the same obligation definition so the $3.49B and $3.82B stocks remain comparable.

Alaska’s 25,423 awards sit on $3.49B. Kentucky’s 140,157 awards sit on $3.82B. Average action size is not in the packet, so this page does not invent one. What the packet does show is that Kentucky’s file is far busier on row count while Alaska’s file is hotter on the per-capita ratio.

Construction in Alaska, courier traffic in Kentucky

Alaska’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. Kentucky’s lead NAICS is couriers and express delivery services. Those labels are the largest industry slices on $3.49B and $3.82B; they are not the entire mix. Construction awards can concentrate dollars in relatively few actions. Courier and express work can generate many actions, which fits Kentucky’s 140,157-row file against Alaska’s 25,423.

The state hubs for Alaska and Kentucky break agencies and recipients behind those peaks. This comparison only names the top industry each packet lists. Both peaks are obligation mixes from USAspending.gov, not outlay mixes from a Treasury cash file.

FY2026 still belongs to Kentucky, $652.0M to $393.9M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $652.0M in Kentucky and $393.9M in Alaska. Recency follows the stacked ranking rather than the per-capita ranking. Kentucky’s $652.0M is about 1.66 times Alaska’s $393.9M, a wider relative gap than the all-years $3.82B versus $3.49B. Treat FY2026 as a recency slice of the same obligation series, not as a cash-outlay year.

Do not divide $652.0M or $393.9M by the all-years award counts of 140,157 and 25,423. Those counts cover the stacked file. Spending per capita of $532.17 and $142.10 already sits beside Census counts of 740,133 and 4,588,372 in the packet and should stay labeled that way.

What 140,157 awards do and do not buy

Kentucky’s 140,157 awards are about 5.5 times Alaska’s 25,423. That volume helps explain how Kentucky reaches $3.82B with a courier-heavy peak. It does not produce the higher per-capita figure. Alaska’s 25,423 awards on 740,133 residents still yield $532.17 per capita against Kentucky’s $142.10. Rows are not dollars. People are not the same as the intensity ratio.

Keep the award counts and the dollar stocks on separate lines when you read the tables. A busy Kentucky file and a thin Alaska file can both be true on USAspending.gov obligations at once.

How to read Alaska versus Kentucky

Read Kentucky first on stacked stock ($3.82B vs $3.49B), on awards (140,157 vs 25,423), on population (4,588,372 vs 740,133), and on FY2026 ($652.0M vs $393.9M). Read Alaska first on spending per capita ($532.17 vs $142.10). Note construction versus couriers. All of those cuts are obligations.

The comparison hub holds the side-by-side tables. The Alaska and Kentucky state hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays remain a different series and are not substituted here.

Obligations, outlays, and what this pair leaves out

USAspending.gov records obligations when the government commits funds, not when Treasury writes a check. Alaska’s $3.49B and Kentucky’s $3.82B are those commitments. Outlays can lag, especially on construction awards that pay out over more than one fiscal year. Alaska’s commercial and institutional building construction peak is the kind of mix where that lag is common. Kentucky’s courier and express delivery peak can post many actions (140,157) whose cash timing still is not in this packet.

The packet also does not list agencies, recipients, or award-by-award dates. Those live on the Alaska and Kentucky state hubs and on the comparison tables. Spending per capita of $532.17 and $142.10 uses Census counts of 740,133 and 4,588,372 where present. FY2026 figures of $393.9M and $652.0M are the latest-year slice of the same obligation series. None of those cuts should be restated as outlays.

Questions

Does Alaska or Kentucky have more federal spending?

Kentucky leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.82B to Alaska’s $3.49B. Alaska leads spending per capita, $532.17 versus $142.10, on 740,133 residents against Kentucky’s 4,588,372. Kentucky has far more awards (140,157 vs 25,423). FY2026 obligations are $652.0M in Kentucky and $393.9M in Alaska.

Why is Alaska’s per-capita federal spending so much higher?

Alaska’s spending per capita is $532.17 on a Census count of 740,133. Kentucky’s is $142.10 on 4,588,372. Stacked obligations are close, $3.49B versus $3.82B, so the smaller population produces the hotter ratio. The figures are packet ratios of USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays per resident.

What industries lead in Alaska and Kentucky?

Alaska’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Kentucky’s is couriers and express delivery services. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $3.49B and $3.82B. Award counts are 25,423 in Alaska and 140,157 in Kentucky. Both mixes are USAspending.gov obligations.

Are Alaska vs Kentucky figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $3.49B and $3.82B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $393.9M and $652.0M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($532.17 vs $142.10) uses Census population where present. Spending per capita uses Census population where present and should not be read as cash per resident.