Imagine hiring a contractor who keeps charging more every year but can’t tell you whether the work is getting done.
Most Kansas families and businesses wouldn’t accept that. Yet state government often measures how much money it spends rather than what Kansans receive in return.
This is the third article in my five-part Kansas budget series. The first examined where taxpayer money goes, while the second explained how spending restraint can protect taxpayers.
Now comes another important question: Are Kansans getting their money’s worth?
Kansas’ fiscal year 2027 budget authorizes approximately $26.8 billion in total spending. That’s a substantial commitment to education, health care, transportation, public safety, and other government activities.
But spending more doesn’t necessarily mean achieving more.
A parent wants children to learn, not just schools to receive more funding. A patient wants timely, quality care, not simply higher Medicaid expenditures. A worker wants better employment opportunities, not another government program with impressive participation numbers.
The distinction matters because government activity (i.e., spending) isn’t the same as government success.
Kansas Already Has a Solution on the Books
Kansas enacted performance-based budgeting in 2016. The idea is straightforward: Government agencies should identify their programs, establish measurable goals, and show what taxpayers receive for the money spent.
Unfortunately, a 2022 Legislative Post Audit found that the system hadn’t meaningfully changed budget decisions; this backs up a report KPI did in 2023 showing the same.
Of 122 performance measures reviewed across seven agencies, only 26% measured ultimate outcomes. Another 30% measured intermediate outcomes, while 44% measured activities or outputs.
In other words, many measures described what agencies did rather than whether their efforts worked.
The audit also found that performance information wasn’t systematically used in executive budget decisions. Its detailed agency review was limited, so the findings shouldn’t be treated as a statewide failure rate.
Still, the lesson is clear: Collecting information isn’t enough if it doesn’t help determine funding.
Fund Results, Not Bureaucracy
As I’ve explained in Kansas Budget Reform, performance-based budgeting should connect taxpayer funding to meaningful outcomes.
For example, education spending should be evaluated alongside student learning and academic progress, not spending alone. Workforce programs should demonstrate whether participants gain lasting employment and higher earnings. Medicaid should be evaluated for timely access, patient outcomes, eligibility accuracy, and costs.
These measures should account for factors outside an agency’s control. But agencies should still explain what their programs accomplish.
Kansas could strengthen accountability through three practical changes.
First, require measurable results. Agencies should report a few meaningful outcomes, their costs, and progress toward clear goals. Lawmakers should receive this information before making budget decisions.
Second, review programs from the ground up. Periodic zero-based budgeting would require agencies to justify spending rather than automatically building on last year’s appropriations.
Third, consider alternatives. Before expanding government, compare whether businesses, nonprofits, community organizations, or individuals could provide services more effectively or at lower cost.
These reviews should identify duplication, ineffective programs, and opportunities to reduce or eliminate spending while preserving essential services.
Kansas can also improve legislative oversight. In Enhancing Kansas’ Budget Process, I outlined how year-round budget reviews could help lawmakers examine programs before the next legislative session.
Put Kansans Ahead of Programs
The Responsible Kansas Budget establishes a benchmark for spending restraint. Performance reviews help determine where reductions can occur and which services deserve priority.
Together, these approaches can create room for permanent, broad-based tax relief while improving accountability.
That means more money for Kansas families to save, invest, and spend according to their priorities, and more opportunities for businesses to grow.
The next article will examine how the budget connects to income taxes, private-sector jobs, wages, and economic growth.
Kansas shouldn’t measure success by how much government spends or how many programs it operates.
It should measure success by what Kansans gain and what taxpayers get to keep. That’s how we let people prosper.
