Skip to main content
PensionRisk

New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) vs Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS)

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

New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) (C) and Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 52% and 72% 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 New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 20.0 percentage points (72.3% vs 52.3%). Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) covers 328,000 participants.

MetricNew Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
54/100 (C)68/100 (B)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
52.3%72.3%*
Total Assets$34.0B$24.8B
Total Liabilities$65.0B$34.3B*
Unfunded Liability$31.0B$9.5B*
Participants425,000328,000
1-Year Investment Return5.1%5.9%*
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levelhighmoderate
SponsorState of New JerseyState of Kansas

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 68/100 (B) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 20.0 percentage points (72.3% vs 52.3%). Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) covers 328,000 participants.

Explore More