Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) vs Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS)

Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) (B) and Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) (C) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 72% and 63% respectively — within a few points of each other.

With grades this close, the comparison turns on plan-specific factors: status (active vs frozen), participant maturity, sponsor financial health, and multi-year trajectory rather than the headline composite.

Verdict

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 68/100 (B) compared to Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) at 57/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 9.2 percentage points (72.3% vs 63.1%). Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) covers 328,000 participants.

MetricKansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS)Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
68/100 (B)*57/100 (C)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
72.3%*63.1%
Total Assets$24.8B$36.2B
Total Liabilities$34.3B*$57.4B
Unfunded Liability$9.5B*$21.2B
Participants328,000245,000
1-Year Investment Return5.9%*5.4%
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levelmoderatehigh
SponsorState of KansasState of Pennsylvania

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 68/100 (B) compared to Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) at 57/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 9.2 percentage points (72.3% vs 63.1%). Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) covers 328,000 participants.

Explore More