Arkansas vs Idaho on USAspending: $1.7B vs $1.2B

Similar intensity, different headcount

Many state pairs in this set invert: the smaller Census count posts the hotter per-capita ratio. Arkansas versus Idaho does not. The $85.06 and $80.33 readings sit within a few dollars of each other. Arkansas’s $1.7B versus Idaho’s $1.2B is mostly a population story—3,088,354 against 2,001,619—rather than a story about sharply different obligation intensity.

Award volume is the cut that is not similar. Arkansas records 79,590 awards; Idaho records 29,667. That thicker Arkansas action log sits on a larger stock and a nearly matched per-capita ratio. Row count is not average award size. Cite USAspending.gov. Do not invent a mean from 79,590 or 29,667.

Poultry processing versus building construction

Arkansas’s lead NAICS is poultry processing. Idaho’s is commercial and institutional building construction. Those peaks sit on $1.7B and $1.2B. A processing peak versus a construction peak is mix, not a ranking. Poultry processing is a first read on Arkansas. Building construction is a first read on Idaho.

The 79,590 Arkansas awards and 29,667 Idaho awards include many actions outside those labels. Agency and recipient lists live on the Arkansas and Idaho state hubs. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes. Outlays are not listed.

Idaho’s commercial and institutional building construction peak on $1.2B does not produce a hotter per-capita reading than Arkansas’s poultry-processing peak on $1.7B. The $80.33 and $85.06 ratios stay close. That is the point of this pair: mix differs, intensity does not differ much. Census counts of 2,001,619 and 3,088,354 still open the stacked-dollar gap. Cite USAspending.gov.

FY2026: $262.7M versus $160.8M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $262.7M in Arkansas and $160.8M in Idaho. Recency preserves Arkansas’s stacked dollar lead and widens it relative to the close per-capita pair. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $262.7M or $160.8M by 79,590 or 29,667 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $85.06 and $80.33 already sits beside Census counts of 3,088,354 and 2,001,619. Cite USAspending.gov for both cuts.

Arkansas’s $262.7M FY2026 slice versus Idaho’s $160.8M is wider than the per-capita gap. Recency follows the larger stock more than the matched ratios. Award volume of 79,590 versus 29,667 follows the same direction. Treat FY2026 as an obligation slice. Outlays are not listed. Do not divide those latest-year amounts by all-years award counts.

Why the per-capita figures stay close

Idaho’s 2,001,619 residents and $1.2B stock produce $80.33 per capita. Arkansas’s 3,088,354 residents and $1.7B stock produce $85.06. The stocks differ; the ratios do not differ much. That is the opposite of pairs where a small-population state posts a much hotter reading.

Arkansas’s extra awards (79,590 vs 29,667) and extra FY2026 dollars ($262.7M vs $160.8M) still mark a larger, busier file. Intensity is the cut that stays nearly even. Keep $85.06 and $80.33 labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations.

How to read Arkansas versus Idaho

Read Arkansas first on stacked dollars ($1.7B vs $1.2B), population (3,088,354 vs 2,001,619), awards (79,590 vs 29,667), and FY2026 ($262.7M vs $160.8M). Read the pair as nearly even on spending per capita ($85.06 vs $80.33). Note poultry processing versus commercial and institutional building construction.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Arkansas and Idaho hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep every dollar figure labeled as an obligation.

What a close per-capita pair still hides

Idaho’s $80.33 and Arkansas’s $85.06 look like a matched intensity pair. They are not a matched file. Arkansas still holds $1.7B against Idaho’s $1.2B, 79,590 awards against 29,667, and $262.7M in FY2026 against $160.8M. Population of 3,088,354 versus 2,001,619 does the stacked-dollar work. Cite USAspending.gov.

Commercial and institutional building construction on Idaho’s mix and poultry processing on Arkansas’s mix remain first reads, not the whole file. An obligation is a commitment; outlays can lag. This packet does not publish cash paid, mean award size, or agency shares. Use the comparison hub and the Arkansas and Idaho state pages for those tables.

Idaho’s $80.33 per capita on 2,001,619 residents stays near Arkansas’s $85.06 even while $1.2B trails $1.7B. Building construction versus poultry processing is mix. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays remain unpublished.

Questions

Does Arkansas or Idaho have more federal spending?

Arkansas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $1.7B to Idaho’s $1.2B. Spending per capita is close: $85.06 versus $80.33 on 3,088,354 and 2,001,619 residents. Arkansas has more awards (79,590 vs 29,667). FY2026 obligations are $262.7M in Arkansas and $160.8M in Idaho. Arkansas also leads FY2026 ($262.7M vs $160.8M). Both series are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Are Arkansas and Idaho similar on a per-capita basis?

Yes, relative to many other pairs. The packet reports $85.06 per capita in Arkansas and $80.33 in Idaho. Stacked stocks still differ ($1.7B vs $1.2B) because population differs (3,088,354 vs 2,001,619). These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. The $85.06 and $80.33 readings use Census population where present.

What industries lead in Arkansas and Idaho?

Arkansas’s top industry is poultry processing. Idaho’s is commercial and institutional building construction. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $1.7B and $1.2B. Award counts are 79,590 in Arkansas and 29,667 in Idaho. The rest of each mix sits outside those peaks on 79,590 and 29,667 awards.

Are Arkansas vs Idaho figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.7B and $1.2B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $262.7M and $160.8M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($85.06 vs $80.33) uses Census population where present. This packet does not publish outlays or average award size.