Does Arkansas or New Hampshire have more federal spending?

New Hampshire leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.48B to Arkansas’s $1.72B. New Hampshire also leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $85.06, on 1,409,032 residents against Arkansas’s 3,088,354. Arkansas has more awards (79,590 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $262.7M in Arkansas and $400.4M in New Hampshire.

Why does Arkansas have more awards if New Hampshire has more dollars?

The packet reports 79,590 awards in Arkansas and 9,224 in New Hampshire on stocks of $1.72B and $2.48B. Award count is a row total, not average size. Spending per capita is $85.06 versus $284.15. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Arkansas and New Hampshire?

Arkansas’s top industry is poultry processing. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $1.72B and $2.48B. Award counts are 79,590 in Arkansas and 9,224 in New Hampshire.

Are Arkansas vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.72B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $262.7M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($85.06 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.

← All guides

Arkansas vs New Hampshire on USAspending: $1.72B vs $2.48B

New Hampshire’s USAspending.gov obligation stock is $2.48B; Arkansas’s is $1.72B. Arkansas has more than twice the people—3,088,354 versus 1,409,032—and far more awards: 79,590 against 9,224. New Hampshire’s spending per capita is $284.15 versus Arkansas’s $85.06. FY2026 obligations are $262.7M in Arkansas and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Poultry processing leads Arkansas; small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. The figures are obligations, not outlays.

Key figures

New Hampshire $2.48B vs Arkansas $1.72B in stacked USAspending obligations.
New Hampshire per capita $284.15 vs Arkansas $85.06 on 1,409,032 vs 3,088,354 residents.
Awards: 79,590 vs 9,224; FY2026 $262.7M vs $400.4M.
Top industries: poultry processing in Arkansas; small arms and ordnance in New Hampshire.
Figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Poultry rows versus an ordnance stock

Arkansas’s 79,590 awards on $1.72B sit against New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B. The row ranking and the dollar ranking split. New Hampshire’s sparse file still produces the larger stock and the $284.15 per-capita reading on 1,409,032 residents.

Arkansas’s 3,088,354 residents produce $85.06 per capita on $1.72B. Intensity favors New Hampshire. Volume favors Arkansas.

FY2026 keeps New Hampshire ahead on recency: $400.4M versus $262.7M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

Arkansas’s 79,590 awards and 3,088,354 residents produce $1.72B and $85.06 per capita. New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards and 1,409,032 residents produce $2.48B and $284.15 per capita. FY2026 of $262.7M versus $400.4M keeps New Hampshire ahead on recency. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Poultry processing versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Outlays are not listed. Do not invent average award size. Cite USAspending.gov. The comparison hub holds the tables.

Poultry processing versus small arms and ordnance

Arkansas’s lead NAICS is poultry processing. New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $1.72B and $2.48B. Poultry processing is a first read on Arkansas’s mix; ordnance is a first read on New Hampshire’s mix.

The 79,590 Arkansas awards and 9,224 New Hampshire awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Arkansas and New Hampshire state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $262.7M versus $400.4M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $262.7M in Arkansas and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Recency preserves New Hampshire’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $262.7M or $400.4M by 79,590 or 9,224 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $85.06 and $284.15 already sits beside Census counts of 3,088,354 and 1,409,032.

Poultry volume versus an ordnance stock

Arkansas’s 79,590 awards on $1.72B against New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B split volume and dollars. New Hampshire’s $284.15 per capita on 1,409,032 residents exceeds Arkansas’s $85.06 on 3,088,354. Both stocks are USAspending.gov obligations.

Poultry processing leads Arkansas. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. FY2026 of $262.7M versus $400.4M keeps New Hampshire ahead on recency.

An obligation is a commitment. Outlays can lag. Do not treat $1.72B or $2.48B as money already paid.

Twice the people in Arkansas, a smaller commitment file

Arkansas’s 3,088,354 residents more than double New Hampshire’s 1,409,032. The USAspending.gov stock still favors New Hampshire, $2.48B versus $1.72B. Headcount does not set the dollar ranking.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Arkansas and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Cite award counts as row totals. Keep per-capita labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

How to read Arkansas versus New Hampshire

Read New Hampshire first on stacked dollars ($2.48B vs $1.72B), spending per capita ($284.15 vs $85.06), and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $262.7M). Read Arkansas first on population (3,088,354 vs 1,409,032) and awards (79,590 vs 9,224). Note poultry processing versus small arms and ordnance.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Arkansas and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. Keep per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations.

New Hampshire’s $2.48B stock, $284.15 per capita, and $400.4M FY2026 slice sit against Arkansas’s 79,590 awards and 3,088,354 residents. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep $1.72B and $2.48B labeled as obligations, not outlays.

Questions

Does Arkansas or New Hampshire have more federal spending?: New Hampshire leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.48B to Arkansas’s $1.72B. New Hampshire also leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $85.06, on 1,409,032 residents against Arkansas’s 3,088,354. Arkansas has more awards (79,590 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $262.7M in Arkansas and $400.4M in New Hampshire.
Why does Arkansas have more awards if New Hampshire has more dollars?: The packet reports 79,590 awards in Arkansas and 9,224 in New Hampshire on stocks of $1.72B and $2.48B. Award count is a row total, not average size. Spending per capita is $85.06 versus $284.15. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.
What industries lead in Arkansas and New Hampshire?: Arkansas’s top industry is poultry processing. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $1.72B and $2.48B. Award counts are 79,590 in Arkansas and 9,224 in New Hampshire.
Are Arkansas vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?: No. The $1.72B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $262.7M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($85.06 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.

State comparison from SpendingVault aggregates of USAspending obligations. Per-capita uses Census population where present.