Skip to content

Industry News

Print

NASRA Updates Brief on State and Local Government Contributions to Statewide Pension Plans for Fiscal Year 2017

In June 2019, the National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA) updated its issue brief, State and Local Government Contributions to Statewide Pension Plans: FY 17. The brief examines: 1) how contributions are determined; 2) recent public employer contribution experience; and 3) trends in employer contributions over time.

According to NASRA, “Overall, the experience for FY 17 reflects a continuation of an improved effort among state and local governments to make actuarially determined pension contributions: on a dollar-weighted basis, the percentage of required contributions that was paid by public employers increased for the fifth consecutive year, while pension costs continued to grow at a slower pace than previous years.”

NASRA’s findings indicate that the median actuarially determined contribution (ADC) received in FY 17 was 100%, ranging from 38.4% to 174.0%. On a dollar-weighted basis, the average ADC received was 94.0%, up from 92.0% in FY 16. The aggregate rate of increase in required contributions from FY 16 to FY 17 was 4.3%. This is the second lowest rate of increase during the measurement period, which marks the fourth consecutive year of growth in required contributions below 5.0%.

On average, employer contributions to public pension plans continue to be a small percentage of state and local government spending. In recent years, employer contributions have been growing. Among the statewide pension plans included in the study, the ADCs increased from $27.8 billion in FY 01 to $109.4 billion in FY 17, up 186% in inflation-adjusted dollars. The actual employer contributions paid rose from $28.0 billion in FY 01 to $96.9 billion in FY 17, up 153% in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Depending on the plan, the growth of required employer contributions is due to one or more factors, including: 1) investment market losses; 2) insufficient contributions; 3) more conservative actuarial methods and assumptions (i.e., lower investment return assumptions and more aggressive amortization periods); and 4) demographic and investment experience that differs from assumptions.

The brief is available here.