Kansas vs New Hampshire on USAspending: $2.91B vs $2.48B

Kansas’s stock, New Hampshire’s intensity and recency

Kansas’s $2.91B is the larger stacked total. New Hampshire’s $2.48B sits on 1,409,032 residents against 2,970,606. Intensity therefore favors New Hampshire: $284.15 per capita versus $67.40. Headcount sets Kansas’s stock lead; it does not set the ratio.

Award volume follows headcount. Kansas records 71,423 awards; New Hampshire records 9,224. Kansas’s file is dense in rows on a larger stock. New Hampshire’s 9,224 actions sit on $2.48B beside the $284.15 reading.

FY2026 is New Hampshire’s recency win: $400.4M versus $200.2M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

Kansas’s 71,423 awards on $2.91B against New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B split volume and intensity. New Hampshire’s $284.15 per capita and $400.4M FY2026 slice exceed Kansas’s $67.40 and $200.2M. Both stocks are USAspending.gov obligations.

Computer systems design services versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Census counts of 2,970,606 and 1,409,032 already sit in the packet. Outlays are not listed. Cite USAspending.gov.

Systems design versus small arms and ordnance

Kansas’s lead NAICS is computer systems design services. New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $2.91B and $2.48B.

The 71,423 Kansas awards and 9,224 New Hampshire awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Kansas and New Hampshire state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $200.2M versus $400.4M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $200.2M in Kansas and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Recency does not preserve Kansas’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $200.2M or $400.4M by 71,423 or 9,224 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $67.40 and $284.15 already sits beside Census counts of 2,970,606 and 1,409,032.

Plains volume versus a sparse New England stock

Kansas’s 71,423 awards on $2.91B against New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B is a volume-versus-intensity split. New Hampshire’s $284.15 per capita on 1,409,032 residents exceeds Kansas’s $67.40 on 2,970,606. Both stocks are USAspending.gov obligations.

Computer systems design services lead Kansas. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. FY2026 of $200.2M versus $400.4M favors New Hampshire on recency.

An obligation is a commitment. Outlays can lag. Do not treat $2.91B or $2.48B as cash already paid.

Why 9,224 awards can still sit on $2.48B

Award count is a row total, not average size. New Hampshire’s sparse file still produces a $2.48B stock and a $400.4M FY2026 slice. Kansas’s busier file produces $2.91B stacked and $200.2M in FY2026.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Kansas and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep per-capita labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

How to read Kansas versus New Hampshire

Read Kansas first on stacked dollars ($2.91B vs $2.48B), population (2,970,606 vs 1,409,032), and awards (71,423 vs 9,224). Read New Hampshire first on spending per capita ($284.15 vs $67.40) and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $200.2M). Note computer systems design versus small arms and ordnance.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Kansas 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 $400.4M FY2026 slice versus Kansas’s $200.2M is the recency gap under Kansas’s $2.91B versus $2.48B stacked lead. Cite both cuts as USAspending.gov obligations. Keep $67.40 and $284.15 labeled as Census-based ratios.

Questions

Does Kansas or New Hampshire have more federal spending?

Kansas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.91B to New Hampshire’s $2.48B. New Hampshire leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $67.40, on 1,409,032 residents against Kansas’s 2,970,606. Kansas has more awards (71,423 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $200.2M in Kansas and $400.4M in New Hampshire.

Does New Hampshire outspend Kansas in FY2026?

Yes on the latest-year slice. The packet reports FY2026 obligations of $400.4M in New Hampshire and $200.2M in Kansas. The all-years stocks still favor Kansas, $2.91B versus $2.48B. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Kansas and New Hampshire?

Kansas’s top industry is computer systems design services. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.91B and $2.48B. Award counts are 71,423 in Kansas and 9,224 in New Hampshire.

Are Kansas vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.91B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $200.2M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($67.40 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.