Public Plans Database

Pension Fund Rankings

Compare US public pension plans by named financial measures reported in the Public Plans Database.

Plans tracked
197
Lowest funded ratio
21.8%
Ranking categories
5

According to the Public Plans Database, compiled by the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, the plan at the bottom of this funded-ratio ordering, Louisiana Teachers Retirement System (Louisiana), reports a funded ratio of 21.8%; PlainPension's dataset was last refreshed in May 2026, see our methodology for the full source and update cadence.

FUNDED RATIO SPECTRUM 197 plans · ranked from worst to best funded 40% 60% 80% Healthy 100% F-grade · 24% A-grade · 110%+
Continuous spectrum of funded ratios across 197 US public pension plans tracked by the Public Plans Database.

Public pension plans ranked by funded ratio

# Plan Funded ratio
1 Louisiana Teachers Retirement System 21.8%
2 Sioux Falls Fire 22.8%
3 Providence Employees Retirement System 23.4%
4 City of Miami Firefighters and Police Officers Retirement Trust 24.3%
5 Des Moines Water Works 26.3%
6 Lexington-Fayette County Policemen's and Firefighters' Retirement Fund 32.0%
7 Chicago Laborers 33.5%
8 Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund 43.8%
9 Iowa Public Employees Retirement System 45.8%
10 Chicago Public School Teachers Pension and Retirement Fund 47.2%
11 Fairfax County Police 48.4%
12 Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association 52.0%
13 Pittsburgh Policemen's Relief and Pension Fund 53.9%
14 Charlotte (NC) Law Enforcement 54.0%
15 New York State and Local Retirement Systems 54.3%
16 Bismarck Employees' Pension Plan 54.4%
17 Louisiana State Employees Retirement System 54.8%
18 Montana Public Employees Retirement Board and Administration 56.1%
19 Georgia Employees Retirement System 56.9%
20 New Hampshire Retirement System 57.6%
21 Washington Department of Retirement Systems 57.9%
22 Louisiana Municipal Employees 58.4%
23 Maine Public Employees Retirement System 58.6%
24 Minnesota State Retirement System 58.7%
25 Atlanta Fire 58.8%
26 Los Angeles Fire and Police 59.3%
27 District of Columbia Retirement Board 59.8%
28 Educational Employees' Supplementary Retirement System of Fairfax County 60.9%
29 Austin Employees' Retirement System 62.1%
30 Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund 62.2%
31 Tucson Supplemental Retirement System 62.2%
32 Austin Fire 62.7%
33 University of California Retirement System 62.8%
34 Ohio State Teachers Retirement System 62.9%
35 Alabama ERS 63.4%
36 Texas Municipal Retirement System 63.7%
37 Marion County Law Enforcement 64.3%
38 Alabama Teachers 65.1%
39 Wyoming Retirement System 65.2%
40 Hartford Municipal Employee Retirement Fund 65.9%

Plans with the lowest reported funded ratios are shown first. See the full funded-ratio ordering →

What these rankings measure

Each page orders the same Public Plans Database records by one reported measure. The ordering is a way to compare that measure, not a forecast or a recommendation.

Four measures, read in context

Funded ratio
The share of reported actuarial liabilities backed by actuarial assets. This is not a market-value comparison.
Unfunded liability
The reported shortfall between liabilities and assets. It reflects dollar scale, not a standalone measure of fiscal risk.
Assets
The asset total reported for the plan's latest available filing. Larger assets can simply reflect a larger plan.
Five-year return
The reported five-year investment return. It does not explain a plan's funding level on its own.

Source, updates, and corrections

PlainPension orders the Public Plans Database records without paid placement or editorial ranking. We update when a verified source release is ingested. To check a figure or report an error, see the methodology and corrections policy.

Every figure on PlainPension is rendered directly from the Public Plans Database (Boston College Center for Retirement Research), no number is typed in by an editor. This hub surfaces the top plans by funded ratio, assets, and liabilities, live from the dataset. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error.