Pew’s Fiscal Sustainability Matrix Helps States Assess Pension Health

New evaluation tool highlights best practices, proven strategies for managing through economic uncertainty

Pew’s Fiscal Sustainability Matrix Helps States Assess Pension Health

Figure 1

Fiscal Sustainability Matrix: 2019

Actuarial Metrics Plan Financial Metrics Budget Risk Indicators
States Funded ratio, 2019 Change in funded ratio, 2008-2019 Employer cost/payroll, 2019 Operating cash flow ratio, 2019 Change in OCF ratio since 2014 Operating cash flow ratio, 2014 Net amorti-zation, 2019 Historic contri-bution volatility, 2008-2019 Assumed return Normal cost sensitivity
Wisconsin 103% 3% 7% -3.8% -2.9% Stable 3% 7.00% Low
South Dakota 100% 3% 6% -2.8% -2.6% Positive 1% 6.50% Low
Tennessee 98% 3% 11% -2.9% -2.2% Positive 2% 7.25% Low
New York 96% -11% 15% -3.7% -2.4% Positive 13% 6.83% High
Washington 96% -4% 10% -0.6% -2.0% Positive 5% 7.48% Mid
Idaho 95% 1% 11% -2.1% -1.8% Positive 1% 7.00% Mid
Nebraska 93% 2% 11% -1.8% -1.0% Positive 2% 7.50% Mid
Utah 92% 5% 23% -1.6% -1.2% Positive 9% 6.95% Low
North Carolina 88% -11% 11% -2.6% -3.0% Positive 8% 7.00% Mid
Iowa 85% -3% 10% -2.9% -2.9% Stable 3% 7.01% Mid
Maine 84% 5% 16% -2.9% -2.9% Positive 4% 6.88% Mid
Delaware 83% -15% 14% -3.2% -2.9% Positive 7% 7.00% High
West Virginia 83% 20% 23% -3.5% -1.8% Positive 7% 7.50% High
Minnesota 82% 1% 9% -3.7% -4.1% Stable 2% 7.49% High
Oklahoma 81% 20% 20% -2.3% -1.8% Positive 3% 7.38% Mid
Arkansas 80% -7% 15% -3.5% -2.8% Positive 1% 7.40% High
Ohio 80% 3% 14% -4.7% -4.9% Positive 4% 7.32% High
Oregon 80% 0% 16% -4.5% -5.0% Negative 11% 7.20% Mid
Georgia 79% -13% 22% -2.8% -3.9% Positive 12% 7.24% Mid
Florida 78% -23% 5% -4.3% -4.4% Negative 3% 7.00% High
Missouri 78% -5% 16% -3.3% -2.9% Positive 4% 7.38% High
Virginia 77% -6% 13% -2.4% -2.3% Positive 10% 6.75% Mid
Wyoming 77% -3% 9% -4.1% -2.5% Negative 4% 7.00% High
Nevada 76% 0% 14% -1.5% -1.0% Negative 12% 7.50% Mid
Maryland 72% -7% 17% -2.2% -1.8% Stable 8% 7.40% High
Montana 72% -11% 15% -3.1% -1.7% Stable 6% 7.59% Mid
California 72% -15% 29% -0.7% -2.7% Positive 22% 7.10% High
Kansas 70% 11% 16% -1.4% -2.8% Positive 10% 7.75% Mid
North Dakota 70% -17% 10% -1.6% -0.9% Negative 5% 7.73% High
Alabama 69% -8% 13% -3.6% -4.1% Positive 4% 7.70% High
Indiana 69% -4% 21% -1.0% 0.3% Positive 8% 6.75% Mid
Texas 69% -22% 8% -3.3% -3.6% Negative 2% 7.31% High
Alaska 67% -8% 41% -4.2% -2.7% Negative 28% 7.38% Low
Louisiana 67% -3% 34% -3.3% -3.3% Positive 16% 7.53% High
New Mexico 67% -16% 15% -3.9% -3.0% Negative 3% 7.25% Mid
Colorado 66% -3% 21% -4.6% -4.5% Negative 9% 7.25% Mid
New Hampshire 66% -10% 16% -1.7% -1.6% Positive 8% 6.75% High
Arizona 65% -15% 18% -1.9% -2.6% Positive 10% 7.44% Mid
Vermont 64% -24% 14% -1.8% -1.4% Stable 9% 7.50% High
Mississippi 62% -11% 17% -4.5% -3.3% Negative 6% 7.75% High
Michigan 61% -23% 28% -4.4% -5.8% Positive 21% 7.35% Low
Massachusetts 59% -4% 21% -2.4% -3.3% Negative 12% 7.25% High
Pennsylvania 58% -29% 33% -2.7% -6.0% Positive 29% 7.21% Low
Hawaii 55% -14% 27% -1.8% -2.2% Negative 14% 7.00% High
South Carolina 55% -15% 17% -2.2% -3.9% Negative 7% 7.25% High
Rhode Island 54% -7% 25% -4.7% -6.5% Positive 6% 6.99% Low
Kentucky 45% -19% 44% -2.6% -7.0% Positive 33% 6.73% Mid
Connecticut 44% -17% 36% -1.4% -2.8% Positive 18% 6.90% Low
New Jersey 40% -33% 20% -4.9% -6.9% Negative 15% 7.18% High
Illinois 39% -15% 46% -2.4% -1.5% Negative 39% 6.89% Mid
Change in funded ratio, 2008-19
increase
decrease
Operating cash flow ratio, 2019
-3.5% or more
-3.6% to -5%
less than -5%
Assumed return
less than 7%
7% to 7.34%
7.35% or more

Note: For detailed definitions of fiscal sustainability matrix terminology and metrics, see Appendix A.

© 2021 The Pew Charitable Trusts