General State Pension Plans

91 general state plans · Avg funded ratio: 76.0%

What the Data Says About General State Pension Plans

The Public Plans Database (PPD) tracks 91 General State pension plans across the United States, covering a broad range of state and local retirement systems that share the general state occupational category. These plans report a weighted average funded ratio of 76.0%, based on the most recent actuarial valuations and Form 5500 filings submitted to the Department of Labor. Individual plan health varies widely within this category — from plans graded A for strong funding discipline to plans graded F that face severe structural shortfalls requiring legislative intervention.

The 76.0% category average for General State plans falls near the national public-pension average of 72–75%, indicating moderate funding gaps that vary significantly by state and sponsoring entity. Each plan's trajectory depends on contribution adequacy (whether employers pay the full Annual Required Contribution), investment returns relative to the assumed rate, and demographic trends such as the ratio of active contributors to retirees drawing benefits.

Public pension plans — including these general state systems — differ from private-sector pensions governed by ERISA and backstopped by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Public plans rely on the full faith and credit of the sponsoring state or local government, meaning funding shortfalls are resolved through state and local budget decisions rather than federal insurance. This information summarizes official Public Plans Database disclosures and is provided for research and educational purposes only. It is not financial, legal, or retirement-planning advice; active and retired members with specific benefit questions should consult their plan administrator.

Plan Funded Ratio Grade
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System 127.3% B
Denver Employees Retirement Plan 108.3% B
West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board 100.0% B
Baton Rouge City Parish Retirement System 99.8% B
Jacksonville General Employee Pension Plan 98.8% B
Omaha ERS 98.3% B
Nashville-Davidson Metropolitan Employees Benefit Trust Fund 98.2% B
Milwaukee City ERS 98.1% B
Boston Retirement Board 97.2% B
Missouri State Employees Retirement System 97.2% B
Manchester Employees' Contributory Retirement System 96.3% B
Louisiana State Parochial Employees 96.2% B
Illinois State Universities Retirement System 95.8% B
Rhode Island Employees Retirement System 95.6% B
Nebraska Retirement Systems 93.4% B
Illinois State Retirement Systems 93.3% B
Florida Retirement System 91.2% B
Delaware Public Employees Retirement System 91.0% B
Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association 89.2% B
Nevada Public Employees Retirement System 88.1% B
Cincinnati Employees Retirement System 88.0% B
Seattle Employees Retirement System 87.8% B
New Jersey Division of Pension and Benefits 87.2% B
Oregon Employees Retirement System 86.9% B
Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System 85.5% B
Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System 83.9% B
Detroit Employees General Retirement System 83.8% B
Utah Retirement Systems 82.8% B
Los Angeles Water and Power 82.6% B
Kansas Public Employees Retirement System 82.4% B
New York City Employees Retirement System 82.2% B
Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement System 82.0% B
Maryland State Retirement and Pension System 80.9% B
Hawaii Employees Retirement System 80.7% B
South Dakota Retirement System 80.4% B
St. Louis Employees 79.6% C
Indiana Public Employees Retirement System 78.4% C
Idaho Public Employee Retirement System 77.9% C
Vermont State Employees Retirement System 77.5% C
New Orleans Employees' Retirement System 76.0% C
Kansas City Missouri Employees' Retirement System 76.0% C
Kentucky Retirement Systems 75.9% C
North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System 75.8% C
New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association 75.7% C
Dallas ERS 75.0% C
North Carolina Retirement Systems 75.0% C
MoDOT & Patrol Employees' Retirement System 74.4% C
Miami General and Sanitation Employees 73.5% C
Birmingham Retirement & Relief System 72.9% C
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System 72.6% C
Arizona State Retirement System 72.6% C
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association 72.5% C
Texas Employees Retirement System 72.4% C
Wichita Retirement System 72.2% C
Phoenix Employees' Retirement System 71.6% C
Massachusetts State Employees' Retirement System 71.4% C
Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System 71.3% C
California Public Employees Retirement System 71.3% C
Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System 71.2% C
Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund 69.9% C
Michigan State Employees Retirement System 69.3% C
Sioux Falls ERS 68.8% C
Wisconsin Retirement System 68.5% C
Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System 68.3% C
South Carolina Retirement Systems 68.1% C
Alaska Public Employees Retirement System 68.0% C
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System 68.0% C
Virginia Retirement System 67.5% C
Wyoming Retirement System 67.2% C
Baltimore City Employees 66.3% C
Connecticut State Employees Retirement System 66.1% C
Tucson Supplemental Retirement System 65.4% C
Burlington ERS 64.4% C
Alabama ERS 63.7% C
University of California Retirement System 63.1% C
District of Columbia Retirement Board 62.3% C
Austin Employees' Retirement System 61.2% C
Minnesota State Retirement System 60.4% C
Washington Department of Retirement Systems 59.6% D
Maine Public Employees Retirement System 59.1% D
Louisiana State Employees Retirement System 57.2% D
Georgia Employees Retirement System 56.9% D
Montana Public Employees Retirement Board and Administration 55.9% D
New York State and Local Retirement Systems 55.5% D
New Hampshire Retirement System 55.3% D
Bismarck Employees' Pension Plan 54.4% D
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System 46.0% D
Chicago Laborers 33.5% F
Des Moines Water Works 28.0% F
Providence Employees Retirement System 24.6% F
San Diego City ERS N/A F

Related

Data sourced from official Public Plans Database and actuarial valuations from federal and state pension systems. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by Kiznis Studio Editorial