The Evolution

of Public
Pension Plans
Past, Present and Future

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 The Evolution
of Public
Pension Plans
Past, Present and Future

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
444 N. Capitol St NW, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20001
Ph: 202-624-1456 • Fax: 202-624-1439
Website: www.ncpers.org • Email: info@ncpers.org

ii National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapter 1. Public Sector Plan Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Plans Yesterday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Plans Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 2. Characteristics of Defined Benefit, Defined Contribution

and Hybrid Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Defined Benefit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Defined Contribution Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hybrid Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Allocation of Risks in DB, DC, and Hybrid Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Portability and Preservation of Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chapter 3. The Politics of Plan Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Shifting Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Financially Preparing Workers for Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Plan Design, Considerations and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 4. Innovative Plan Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Texas Municipal Retirement System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Washington State Teachers’ Retirement System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Public Sector Retirement Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2. Defined Benefit Plans: Summary of Plan Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3. Benefit Plans: Summary of Employer Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. Benefit Plans: Summary of Employee Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

iv National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

Preface
This document presents an overview of how pension plans in the public sector have evolved. For most of the
last century public plans were defined benefit (DB) plans, considered by the majority of public sector employees
to be the most valuable benefit received during a long career in public service. Although public sector pay has
historically lagged that of private sector employees, pension benefits have been an effective way for governments
to attract and retain good public employees.
Over the last decade, however, public sector DB plans have increasingly come under attack. In an effort to
cut costs, due in part to global competition, many corporations have frozen or terminated their DB plans and
replaced them with defined contribution (DC) plans. Some public officials have applied similar logic to state and
local governments, and have sought to replace public sector DB plans with DC plans. Although the results of this
change would likely have significantly negative consequences for taxpayers and public employees, as pointed out
in the NCPERS research report “The Top Ten Advantages of Maintaining Defined Benefit Pensions,” these efforts
have been successful in a few states and municipalities.
However, demographic and economic pressures have led some public DB plans to reexamine their plan designs,
and consider blending DB and DC plan features. For example, the median age of the public sector workforce is
about 45, meaning half of current public employee will likely retire in the next 15 to 20 years. To replace them, state
and local governments will need to provide benefits that are attractive to younger, more mobile workers. DB plans,
designed more for long-term employees, have lacked the portability that younger workers desire.
In addition, the stock market volatility over the past decade has increased the awareness of public employers
and employees regarding the potential risks and rewards of the financial markets. While the markets are up, as
during the late 1990s, there was growing pressure on the part of employees to participate in DC plans. However,
when the stock market declined from 2000 through 2002, many workers saw the value of their DC accounts decline
by 50% or more, causing many to reevaluate the attractiveness of DC plans. The stock market decline also increased
DB plan costs, causing the governmental plan sponsors to look for ways of more equitably sharing market risks.
To gain a better understanding of the ongoing evolution of plan design, NCPERS initially prepared a report
titled “The Evolution of Public Sector Pension Plans” in 2002 and has updated it. In it we describe the character-
istics of DB and DC plans maintained by public sector employers and then detail five examples of innovative plan
designs that offer variations to traditional DB plans. We also review the issues that have driven the discussion
of DC plans, as well as the adoption of hybrid plan designs. Finally, we discuss the economic factors that have
influenced the development of public sector plans. The evolution of public pension plans continues.

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

March 2008

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 

 Acknowledgements
This report is the result of many hours of work by several individuals. We appreciate the special contributions
of Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company, including Paul Zorn, who directs their governmental research and who
prepared this comprehensive update of the original 2002 report. Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company is a benefit
consulting and actuarial firm that specializes in providing services to public sector pension and retiree health care
plans (www.gabrielroeder.com).
We would also like to thank the original authors of the report, Cathie Eitelberg, who directs the Segal
Company’s public sector practice, and Rod Crane, formerly the Segal Company’s defined contribution practice
leader and currently director of institutional client services at TIAA-CREF.
Additionally, we thank the representatives of the five statewide retirement plans discussed in Chapter 4. Their
review and comments ensured the accuracy of the plan descriptions.
Finally, our thanks to the NCPERS Officers and Executive Board for their support and encouragement.

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

March 2008

 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

CHAPTER 1.

Public Sector Plan Design

Public sector retirement plans for state and local government employees date back over a century to the late 1800s.
These plans were developed by government employers to provide retirement benefits for employees who were in
public service. In many cases the plans were offered to make public employment competitive with employment
in the private sector, which often paid higher wages. The reasoning was that although an employee earned less
money working for a government, their retirement benefits were guaranteed. This guarantee protected employees
and family members throughout their retirement years.

n Plans Yesterday
The first law creating retirement benefits for public employees was passed in New York State in 1857, which
provided a lump sum payment to New York City police officers injured in the line of duty. In 1878, the plan was
revised to provide a lifetime pension for police officers at age 55 after completing 21 years of service. This same
coverage was afforded New York City’s firefighters in 1866.
The earliest municipal plan for teachers was established
in New York’s borough of Manhattan in 1894. Six state teacher To provide retirement protection
retirement systems date back to the beginning of the twentieth
for their workers, many state and
century: North Dakota and California established plans in 1913,
followed by Massachusetts in 1914, Connecticut and Pennsylvania
local governments developed
in 1917 and New Jersey in 1919. their own retirement plans.
The first state employee retirement system for general ser-
vice employees was established by Massachusetts in 1911. By 1930,
12% of the larger state-administered pension systems currently in existence had been established.
After 1935, the number of public plans grew rapidly. The Social Security Act, which passed in 1935, excluded
state and local government employees, due to concerns over constitutional issues related to the federal taxation
of states and their political subdivisions. To provide retirement protection for their workers, many state and local


U.S. Congress, Task Force Report, p. 61. See Bibliography for full references.

Task Force Report, p. 61.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 

 Chapter 1

governments developed their own retirement plans. Between 1935 and 1950, roughly half of the larger state and
local government plans in the United States were established.
As originally designed, many earlier public retirement plans consisted of two parts: (1) a lifetime pension
funded by the employer based on the employee’s salary and years of service at retirement, and (2) an annuity
based on the value of accumulated employee contributions. For
example, when it was established in 1920, the New York State
Although ERISA does not apply Employees’ System promised a benefit of 1/140th (0.71%) of final
to public sector plans, many compensation (averaged over the last 5 years of employment)
times years of service, funded by the State. In addition, it pro-
governments incorporated the
vided an annuity, based on employee contributions, intended to
prudent person rule in their roughly match the State-provided benefit.
investment standards. However, in order for employees hired at different ages to
match the employer’s benefit at retirement, different employee
age-based contributions rates were often required, complicating
the system’s administration. Consequently, by the 1970s, most public sector plans had simplified their benefit
designs to provide lifetime benefits based solely on age, service and salary at retirement. Although employee
contributions were typically still required, they were generally set at a fixed rate and the retirement benefit did
not depend on accumulated employee contributions.
In addition to changes in benefit design, public sector plans have evolved in other ways. Perhaps one of the
most significant changes that plans have made over the last three decades relates to investment policy. Before the
1980s, many plans restricted plan investments using “legal lists” specifying the portion of plan assets that could
be invested in various securities. Often these legal lists restricted the percent of plan assets held in common stock
to 35% or less. However, starting in the 1980s, many public plans began applying the “prudent person” rule to
govern investments. This rule was codified in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 and
allowed assets to be invested in a wide range of securities, as long as the investments were prudent and diversified.
Although ERISA does not apply to public sector plans, many governments incorporated the prudent person rule
in their investment standards. As a result, the proportion of plan assets invested in equities grew rapidly, as did
their investment earnings.


Task Force Report, p. 61.

Bleakney, p. 34. For those employed before the system was established, an additional benefit was provided based
on prior service in order to make up for the benefit that would otherwise have been funded through employee
contributions.

Task Force Report, p. 132.

Mitchell, p. 15.

 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 Public Sector Plan design

n Plans Today
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there were 2,654 state and local government employee retirement systems
in 2006, covering 14.5 million active employees and 7.3 million retirees and beneficiaries. The Bureau estimates
that state and local governments paid $152 billion in retirement benefits in 2006, averaging $20,800 per retiree/
beneficiary. According to the Federal Reserve’s Flow of Funds report, the collective financial assets of state and
local retirement systems reached a record high of $3.2 trillion in 2007.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), nearly all (98%) full-time employees of state and
local governments participated in one or more employer-sponsored retirement plans in 1998. (This is the most
recent year for which data are available.) As shown in Table 1, 90% of these employees were covered by defined
benefit (DB) plans and 14% were covered by defined contribution (DC) plans (with some employees covered
by more than one plan). DB plans typically provide benefits at retirement based on an employee’s final average
salary and years of service. DC plans, on the other hand, provide benefits based solely on accumulated employer
and employee contributions plus investment gains and losses. (Chapter 2 provides a more detailed comparison of
these two plan designs.)

TABLE 1. PUBLIC SECTOR RETIREMENT PLANS

Type of Plan Percentage of Full-Time Employee Participation

1987 1990 1992 1994 1998

Defined Benefit 93% 90% 87% 91% 90%

Defined
9% 9% 9% 9% 14%
Contribution

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998. (These numbers may not add to 100% because
some employees either lacked any coverage or participated in more than one plan.)

Over the last 10 years, however, public sector retirement systems have begun to explore ways of combining DB
and DC features into “hybrid” plan designs. The key features of DB, DC, and hybrid plan designs are discussed
in the next chapter.


U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Table 5a.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Table 1.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, 2007. Table L.119.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 

 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
CHAPTER 2.

Characteristics of Defined
Benefit, Defined Contribution,
and Hybrid Plans
Generally, employers provide retirement benefits as a means of attracting and retaining the employees needed
to deliver the goods or services provided by the employer. For this purpose, different plan designs are better at
meeting different workforce needs. If the employer’s workforce is young and highly
mobile, a plan design that quickly gives employees a right to their benefits and If the employer needs a
allows them to take the benefits with them when they change employers will be
workforce that is more
attractive to such workers. Rapid vesting and broad portability are key advantages
of DC plan designs. However, while this design may attract workers, it is less likely
mature and has the
to retain them. If the employer needs a workforce that is more mature and has the skills and experience
skills and experience required to effectively provide the goods and services, then a required to effectively
better retirement plan design would be one that rewards long-term service. This is
provide the goods and
a key advantage of DB plans.
services, then a better
retirement plan design
n Defined Benefit Plans would be one that
rewards long-term
DB plans provide employees with retirement benefits using a predetermined for-
mula, typically based on the participant’s salary and years of service at retirement.
Although formulas vary widely, a fairly typical retirement benefit is 2% of final average salary times years of
service, with salary averaged over the last three to five years of service. Under this formula, the annual benefit for
an employee who retired after 20 years of service with a final average salary of $50,000 would be $20,000 (i.e., 2%
x $50,000 x 20 years). Employees can, therefore, predict their retirement benefit by approximating how long they
intend to work and what they estimate their salary will be at retirement.
An employee’s right to receive a benefit from a DB plan (i.e., to “vest” in the plan) typically takes 5 years or
longer. By contrast, DC plans often have shorter vesting periods, enabling short-term employees to withdraw or
rollover their assets when they change employment. For most state and local government DB plans, the benefit
earned for vested service to date is legally guaranteed under the state’s constitution or statutes.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 

 Chapter 2

The promised DB benefit is funded through employer contributions, investment earnings and, for the vast
majority of public sector plans, employee contributions. Unlike in the private sector, where very few DB plans
require employee contributions, employee contributions are required in 78% of public sector plans.10
The DB benefit at retirement is usually paid in the form of a monthly annuity (i.e., a series of monthly
payments made over the employee’s lifetime). However, an increasing number of plans offer a partial lump-sum
distribution, where a portion of the member’s total accrued benefit is paid in a single distribution, and the
remaining annuity is reduced as a result. Many public plans also provide for cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs),
early retirement, death, disability and survivor benefits. Table 2 presents the major features of state and local DB
plans, as surveyed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

n Defined Contribution Plans

Ultimately, the individual’s
retirement benefit is determined DC plans provide benefits through individual accounts estab-
by accumulated contributions lished for each employee. In DC plans, the employer contribu-
tion made on behalf of each participant is defined, or stipulated,
and investment income, less
in the plan. Often employees contribute as well, either on a
investment management fees mandatory or voluntary basis (or both). Typically, the accounts
and operating expenses. are managed by an independent, third-party administrator,
and employees direct how their accounts are invested among
a variety of funds. Federal income taxes on contributions and
investment earnings are deferred until the funds are distributed to the employee.
Ultimately, the individual’s retirement benefit is determined by accumulated contributions and investment
income, less investment management fees and operating expenses. At retirement, the benefit may be paid in a
lump sum (the most common form of distribution) or as an annuity or as a combination of the two, as permitted
by plan design or current tax law. Once the employee retires or otherwise leaves employment, the employer is no
longer responsible for contributing to or otherwise providing the benefit.

n Hybrid Plans
Hybrid plans combine DB and DC plan features. While a change from a pure DB plan shifts a portion of the
risks (and potential rewards) to employees, the hybrid approach typically provides a tax-advantaged means for
employees to contribute towards their retirement and to invest in diversified funds. In addition, when used in the
public sector, the hybrid approach typically allows employees to convert their DC accounts to an annuity, which
adds to the employees’ lifetime benefits.

10
U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1998. Table 125.

 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFINED BENEFIT, DEFINED CONTRIBUTION, AND HYBRID PLANS

TABLE 2. DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS: SUMMARY OF PLAN PROVISIONS

White-collar
All Blue-collar and
Provision employees, Teachers
employees service employees
except teachers
Number (in thousands) with
12,983 5,312 3,523 4,148
defined benefit plans
Percent
Total with defined benefit plan 100 100 100 100

Basic Provisions

Employee contribution required 78 74 88 75

Benefits based on earnings 99 100 100 98

Benefits integrated with Social
7 7 5 9
Security
Benefits subject to maximum 22 21 18 27
Early retirement benefits
87 89 92 81
available
Disability retirement benefits
97 96 97 98
available
Portability provisions 43 43 41 46
Availability of lump sum
7 7 7 7
benefits at retirement
Automatic cost-of-living
53 59 51 53
adjustments
Other Provisions
Normal retirement supplement
4 4 2 5
available
Early retirement supplement
3 3 2 3
available
Minimum benefits provision 3 2 - 5

Early retirement requires

3 4 - 3
employer approval
Deferred vested benefits
available prior to normal 85 86 83 86
retirement
Lump-sum postretirement
15 17 12 16
survivor benefits
Lump-sum preretirement
13 17 7 13
survivor benefits
Full pension restored if spouse
44 43 47 42
predeceases retiree
Survivor benefits for children 20 22 11 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998. Table 107.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 

 Chapter 2

In the public sector, hybrid plans are often designed around an approach that uses separate, but coordinated,
DB and DC plans. The DB plan is typically funded by the employer and provides benefits based on a low multi-
plier (e.g., 1.0% or 1.25%) applied to final average salary times years of service. Vesting, eligibility for retirement,
and distribution options typically mirror those of the traditional DB plan. The DC plan is financed through tax-
deferred employee contributions, often set at minimum mandatory level (e.g., 6%), although additional voluntary
employee contributions are often allowed. Employees are able to choose from a variety of investment options.
Upon retirement, the DC account balance can be taken as a lump sum or rolled over into an IRA or similar plan.
In many cases, but not always, the DC account can also be converted to an annuity.
Another type of hybrid design used by public sector plans is the “cash balance” approach, which is popular
in the private-sector. Under this design, individual accounts are established for employees and credited with a set
percentage of the employee’s pay (e.g., 6%) plus interest at a rate established by the plan. The amounts accumulate
over time and, at retirement, are payable either in a lump sum or an equivalent annuity, at the election of the
employee. In the private sector, these plans are typically funded entirely by the employer. In the public sector, the
plans are often funded through both employee and employee contributions.
Tables 3 and 4 enumerate the specific differences between DB, DC, and hybrid plans, from both the employer
and employee perspectives.

n Allocation of Risks in DB, DC, and Hybrid Plans

Different plan designs allocate retirement risks in different ways between the employer and employees. These
risks include:

n Longevity risk
n Investment risk
n Inflation risk
n Disability and survivor risk, and
n Regulatory risk

Longevity risk is the risk that the employee will live longer than expected. In a DC plan, this risk falls on the
employee, since the employee is responsible for ensuring that the benefits provided by the account balance will
last his or her potential lifetime (i.e., to their mid-90s). In a DB plan, this risk ultimately falls on the plan sponsor,
but is mitigated because longevity risks are pooled (i.e., averaged) over the plan members (employees, retirees, and
their beneficiaries). Consequently, the plan only needs to fund benefits over the average life-expectancy for the
group (i.e., to their mid-80s). According to Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company research, the pooling of longevity
risk can reduce the cost of providing lifetime benefits by over 20%.11 In a hybrid plan, the longevity risk falls on the

11
Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company, 2006.

10 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFINED BENEFIT, DEFINED CONTRIBUTION, AND HYBRID PLANS

TABLE 3. BENEFIT PLANS: SUMMARY OF EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVES

Objective Defined Benefit Defined Contribution Hybrid

Funding Certainty Plan liabilities change based Plan liabilities are fulfilled Plan liabilities are
on actuarial experience annually as contributions reduced to the extent
(e.g., future salary increases, are made to employee the benefit multiplier
investment earnings, accounts based on a is reduced.
employee turnover). percentage of payroll.

Predictable Annual contribution may Annual employer Annual employer

Contribution Costs vary from year to year, based contributions are more contributions will
on actuarial experience predictable because continue to vary from
(see above). Rates may be they are based on a set year to year, but at
set by statute to increase percentage of employee a lower percent of
predictability. salaries. payroll.

Recruitment Tool Effective for recruiting Effective for recruiting Effectiveness will
and retaining long-term short-term employees. depend on mix of DB
employees. May result in unexpected and DC features.
retention of employees
if account assets are
insufficient to ensure
adequate retirement.

Rewards for Career Benefits are typically based Benefits are based on A portion of the
Employees on final average salary, accumulated contributions benefit will be based
rewarding career employees. and earnings. on final average salary
and service.

Expenses Expenses include actuarial Some plan expenses Plan expenses will
valuation and investment may be lower. However, likely be higher and
fees (including record- employee education costs include the actuarial
keeping and investment may be higher. valuation, investment
management). fees, and employee
education costs.

Investment Risk Investment risk is The employee assumes Investment risk

assumed by the employer. investment risk and will be shared by
Contributions may be will likely pay higher the employer and
lowered by earnings that investment fees. employees.
exceed assumed rates of
return.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 11

 Chapter 2

TABLE 4. BENEFIT PLANS: SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVES

Objective Defined Benefit Defined Contribution Hybrid

Benefit Potential Benefits paid at retirement Benefits paid at retirement A smaller portion of benefits
are for life and are are based on contributions paid at retirement are for
guaranteed by the plan’s and earnings. The final life and guaranteed by the
benefit formula. Cost- retirement benefit can be plan’s benefit formula.
of-living increases are eroded by pre-retirement Cost-of-living increases are
common. distributions. potentially available.

Understandable Benefits require explanation Benefits are based on Understanding benefits

Benefits because they are based accumulated contributions will be more complicated.
on a set of variables, e.g., plus earnings at the time Explanation will involve
future earnings and years of of retirement. Market communication of both the
service at retirement. There fluctuations make DB and DC portions of the
are no separate accounts. it difficult to predict benefit.
retirement benefit.

Access to Benefits may not be Benefits may be withdrawn Depending on the type of
Benefits While withdrawn while actively or loaned under certain DC plan used, the portion of
Employed employed before normal circumstances, provided the benefit held in the DC
retirement age. Loans can IRS guidelines are followed, account will be subject to
be made, provided IRS and depending on plan employee access in the same
guidelines are followed, but type (e.g., 401(a), 403(b), manner as provided by the
are rare. 401(k) and 457). IRS.

Rewards Benefits are typically Benefits are based on Benefits will provide less
for Career based on final average accumulated contributions reward for career employees
Employees salary, rewarding career and earnings, tending than a traditional DB plan,
employees. to reward all employees but more than a DC plan.
equally.

Portability Benefits have limited Benefits are portable. Benefits are less portable
portability. than a DC plan, but more
portable than a DB plan.

Expenses The plan pays Employee pays Employee pays the portion
administrative and administrative and of administrative and
investment fees. investment fees. investment fees attributable
to the DC portion.

Investment Risk Investment risk is assumed Investment risk is assumed Investment risk is shared by
by the employer. by the individual and bears the employer and employee.
a direct relationship to the
retirement benefit.

12 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFINED BENEFIT, DEFINED CONTRIBUTION, AND HYBRID PLANS

employer to the extent the benefit is provided as an annuity funded through the DB plan. It falls on the employee
to the extent the benefit is paid from the employee’s DC account balance or is taken as a lump sum.
Investment risk is the risk that investment earnings (minus investment management fees) will be less than
required to finance the benefits. In a DC plan, investment risk falls entirely on the employee, since the employee
is responsible for allocating the investments and paying the fees. In a DB plan, the investment risk ultimately
falls on the plan sponsor, but again is mitigated by the plan’s very long time horizon. In a DB plan, investment
selection is done by professionals and assets are diversified over a broad range of investments. Moreover, DB
plans are often able to negotiate investment management fees that are significantly lower than the fees paid by
DC plan participants. In a hybrid plan, investment risk falls
on the employer to the extent the benefit is funded through
the DB plan or investment return is guaranteed on employee DB plans are often able to negotiate
accounts. Otherwise, it falls on the employee. investment management fees that
Inflation risk is the risk that the purchasing power of
are significantly lower than the fees
retirement benefits will decline over time due to inflation.
In a DC plan, this risk falls on the employee, although a paid by DC plan participants.
modest case can be made that the investment returns earned
on the employee’s DC account provide some protection
from inflation. In a DB plan, the risk ultimately falls on the employer sponsoring the plan to the extent the plan
provides post-employment cost-of-living adjustments. Again, however, a case can be made that the plan’s invest-
ment returns provide some protection against this risk for the plan sponsor. In a hybrid plan, the risk falls on the
employer to the extent to plan provides post-employment cost-of-living adjustments; otherwise, it falls on the
employee.
Disability and survivor risk is the risk that the disability or death of the employee will significantly reduce or
eliminate the employee’s income or the income of the employee’s surviving spouse. In a DC plan, this risk falls on
the employee and surviving spouse, because the benefit paid by a DC plan due to disability or death is limited to
the accumulated account balance. In a DB plan, the risk usually falls on the plan sponsor, since most DB plans
also provide disability and survivor benefits. Again, by pooling the risks across plan members, the plan is able to
mitigate these risks and lower their costs. Since most hybrid plans provide DB disability and survivor benefits,
most of the risk falls on the employer.
Regulatory risk is the risk that laws and regulations governing plan design and operation may change in ways
that add complexity to plan administration or potentially curtail benefits. Often regulatory risk is borne by the
plan sponsor (whether DB, DC, or hybrid plan) in the form of added legal and administrative costs. However,
this risk can also affect plan participants. For example, as a result of the 2006 Pension Protection Act, Congress
changed the rules related to cash-balance and similar hybrid plans. This was done to clarify how such benefits
can accrue in ways that are not age discriminatory.12 As a result of the legislation and related IRS regulations, the
interest that is credited on cash-balance and other similar accounts may generally not exceed the rates earned on

12
 ee § 701 of the 2006 Pension Protection Act, IRS Notice 2007-6, and the Proposed Regulations issued at 72 Fed.
S
Reg. 736800.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 13

 Chapter 2

long-term, investment-grade corporate bonds. For cash balance and similar hybrid plans that credited interest at
higher rates before this rule was enacted, this change may lower benefits for plan participants.

n Portability and Preservation of Benefits

One of the major distinctions between DB and DC plans is the portability of plan assets. In public sector DB plans,
some portability is provided through the purchase of service credit. This option was enhanced by the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), which permits assets from governmental DC
plans (including 403(b) and 457(b) governmental plans) to be used to purchase permissive service credits under
governmental DB plans. In addition, governmental plans can accept in-service direct trustee-to-trustee transfers
or post-service direct rollovers from 401(a) DC and 401(k) plans to purchase service credit or buy back service.
However, participants in DB plans generally cannot draw on the value of their accrued retirement benefits until
they retire without forfeiting their right to a retirement benefit later.
By contrast, employees who participate in DC plans have a greater range of choices when they separate from
service. They may elect to receive their account balance immediately, leave accumulated assets in the plan, or roll
them over to another qualified plan. However, if they are younger than age 55 when they separate from service
(or age 50 for public safety employees), they will be subject to a 10% early distribution penalty if they choose an
immediate lump sum distribution. In addition, if they spend these assets rather than investing them, they will
reduce the amount available for retirement, including potential future investment earnings.

14 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

CHAPTER 3.

The Politics of Plan Design

For most Americans, retirement benefits are provided through a combination of three sources: Social Security,
employer-sponsored retirement plans, and personal savings. Although about one-quarter of public sector
employees are not covered by Social Security, their retirement plans are generally structured to provide compa-
rable benefits.
As noted in Chapter 1, the vast majority of public sector employees are covered by DB plans. These plans have
evolved over time and have long been favored over DC plans for a number of reasons:

n DB plans enhance the ability of state and local governments to attract qualified employees and retain
them throughout their careers. This is especially important for occupations where the effective delivery
of public services is based on special training and experience, such as with public safety and education.
n DB plans provide secure retirement benefits based on salary and service, thereby rewarding employees
for long-term service and providing a lifetime retirement benefit.
n DB plans are an efficient way of pooling longevity risks and lowering investment management fees,
thereby lowering the cost per unit of benefit. Investment earnings that are above the actuarially assumed
rate of return help to offset future employer contributions.
n DB plans can provide disability and survivor benefits, typically at lower costs than those charged by a
third party provider in cases where such benefits supplement DC accruals.
n DB plans can accommodate early retirement features and cost-of-living increases.

n Shifting Demographics
However, during the last two decades, questions have been raised as to whether the design of DB plans was
responsive to the needs of the changing workforce. Younger workers entering the public sector changed jobs
more frequently and were willing to take risks in investing their retirement assets. Spurred on by positive growth
in the equities markets, some of these workers believed they could achieve a higher ultimate retirement benefit if
their retirement earnings could be invested aggressively and be fully portable. As a result, these workers tended
to favor DC plans.
Although the influence of the younger, more mobile workers on plan design is significant, an equally impor-
tant influence comes from baby boomers, many of whom will reach retirement age over the next 10 to 20 years.
A 2001 Segal Company report, titled The Aging of Aquarius: the Baby Boom Generation Matures, observes that

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 15

 Chapter 3

“the boomers’ maturation and aging will, in many ways, shape American life, especially the workplace, during the
first decades of the twenty-first century.”13 The study notes that a maturing baby boom generation, coupled with
a significantly smaller succeeding generation (Generation X), is resulting in a changing workplace. In 1980, half
of American workers were under 35 years of age. In 2007, the median age of American workers is about 41, and
the median age of the public sector workforce is about 45. Older
workers (age 55 and older) prefer DB plans over DC plans by a
At the same time the workforce wide margin, which translates into employers needing flexibility
in retirement benefit plans.
is aging, the annual growth rate
At the same time the workforce is aging, the annual growth
of the labor force is slowing, rate of the labor force is slowing, resulting in the need to retain
resulting in the need to retain older workers. Employers are beginning to recognize the need
older workers. to retain older workers in creative and cost-effective ways. One
example is the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). This
type of plan permits employees to initiate a retirement benefit
while they continue to work. Pension payments are paid into an escrow account until the employee stops working,
when he or she may receive the DROP money in a lump sum, role it over into an IRA, or use other options that
the plan provides, in addition to receiving regular pension benefits.

n Financially Preparing Workers for Retirement

The Employee Benefit Research Institute’s 2007 Retirement Confidence Survey contains several disarming statis-
tics regarding workers’ confidence in their retirement security. Even though workers’ confidence has remained
relatively high, it also appears many workers do not fully understand how their retirement systems have been
changing, at least in the private-sector. Consequently, the survey reports that many workers may fail to act con-
structively to secure their retirement.14
For example, 70% of workers responding to the 2007 survey said they are “very confident” or “somewhat con-
fident” about having enough money to live comfortably during retirement. Moreover, 62% said that they expect to
receive income from their retirement plan throughout retirement. However, only 41% indicate that they or their
spouse have a defined benefit plan. Consequently, about 20% are expecting benefits they are unlikely to receive.

13
The Segal Company, 2001.
14
EBRI Issue Brief No. 304, p. 1.

16 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 THE POLITICS OF PLAN DESIGN

n Plan Design, Considerations and Trends

Public sector retirement systems in the twenty-first century must consider all these factors as they review their
pension plans and benefits:

n Although the workforce is aging, younger employees are more mobile and are willing to take greater risks
in the investment of their retirement assets.
n Equity markets are in flux.
n There is concern that Social Security benefits will not maintain their current value.
n Slowing growth in the labor force will encourage employers to retain older workers, possibly through
retirement plan features such as DROPs.

Initially, state and local governments saw their retirement plan design options as either DB or DC. However,
as individual jurisdictions debated the pros and cons of both types of plans, some designed new plans that com-
bined elements of each, often adopting different plans for employees based on length of service.
In 2001, the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, in coordination with the National
Association of State Retirement Administrators, completed a study of current trends among 76 large public
employee pension plans in several benefit areas.15 Major findings of this study reflect the fact that although the
majority of public sector plans are still DB plans, they are becoming more flexible by incorporating features of DC
plans to reflect workforce changes. The study’s findings include:

n There is a trend toward incorporating elements of DC plans into existing DB plans. A number of these
DB plans have features that offer greater portability of benefits and more flexible retirement options (e.g.,
supplemental DC plan accounts and employer matching contributions to tax-deferred savings plans).
n Five retirement systems have enacted legislation that allows or will allow a DB or DC option for all
employees, in some cases limiting the option according to length of service.
n Retirement systems have continued to adopt a variety of innovative provisions that offer increased
portability of benefits to vested and non-vested members.

The next chapter provides several case studies summarizing variations on innovative plan designs.

15
NASRA, April 2001.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 17

18 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
CHAPTER 4.

Innovative Plan Design

As noted in Chapter 1, many state and local retirement plans were originally established to provide retirement
benefits in two parts: (1) a lifetime benefit provided by the employer based on the participant’s salary and length
of service; and (2) an annuity benefit based on accumulated employee contributions and investment returns.
Over time, the complexities involved in administering the separate plans and, in many cases, managing
employee contribution rates based on age and gender, prompted plans to simplify their designs and led to broad
application of the DB plan approach. By the late 1970s, most public plans were DB plans. Although employee
contributions were still required for the majority of public plans, the benefit promised did not depend on accu-
mulated employee contributions.
More recently, however, the demographic, economic, and political pressures discussed in Chapter 3 have
led some state and local governments to consider alternatives to the DB approach. While a few governments
have switched to DC plans, more governments have been reluctant to shift completely away from DB plans, and
have combined DB and DC plan features. To illustrate the various hybrid plans provided by governments, the
remainder of this chapter presents five short case studies, each describing a hybrid approach:

n Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan

n Texas Municipal Retirement System
n Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
n Washington State Teachers’ Retirement System, and
n Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association

n Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan

The Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan (MERS) is a statutory, non-profit, public corporation
that acts as an instrumentality of its participating governments and provides retirement and health care benefits
to local governments within the state. As a tax-qualified retirement plan, MERS provides retirement benefits to
over 680 jurisdictions covering approximately 38,000 active governmental employees, and 22,000 retirees and
beneficiaries. Participation in MERS is voluntary and each participating employer is responsible for funding its
own separate plan. The vast majority of members are covered under DB plans, although several jurisdictions
participate in DC plans offered by MERS.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 19

 Chapter 4

Effective October 1, 2006, MERS unveiled its hybrid plan, consisting of DB and DC plan components. The
plan was designed to help local governments control the costs of providing retirement benefits without having
to switch to a pure DC plan. For the DB benefit, participating employers may select one of three benefit multi-
pliers: 1.0%, 1.25%, and 1.5%, applied to average 3-year final compensation for employees in the covered group.
Employees vest in the benefit after 6 years and become eligible to begin receiving benefits at age 60 (with no
option for early retirement). The plan also provides disability and in-service death benefits, but does not provide
postemployment cost-of-living increases. The DB benefit is funded by employer contributions.
The DC benefit is financed through pre-tax employee contributions made to individual accounts managed
by MERS’s third-party administrator (TPA). Employers may also contribute to the accounts, if they so choose.
Additional, voluntary employee contributions are also allowed, up to the IRS limits. Employees direct their invest-
ments, selecting from a variety of funds offered by the TPA. In addition, participants may invest in the MERS Total
Market Fund, which is the same fund that MERS uses for its defined benefit portfolio, and which MERS offers at
a low investment fee. Distributions from the DC account can be taken as a lump sum or as an annuity purchased
from an insurance carrier. If taken as a lump sum, the amount can be rolled over into another qualified plan.

n Texas Municipal Retirement System

The Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) is a statewide multiple-employer public retirement system
created by law in 1947 to offer retirement and disability benefits to the employees of member cities. Each partici-
pating municipality (827 at the end of 2007) has its own retirement plan within the general framework of the Texas
Municipal Retirement System Act and selects available plan options according to its own needs. All permanent
full-time and part-time employees of a participating employer
are eligible to participate. In 2006, there were 132,927 employee
TMRS is a modified DB accounts and 30,089 retired members.
retirement plan that credits TMRS is a modified DB retirement plan that credits annual
interest on contributions, but does not guarantee the ultimate
annual interest on contributions,
benefit amount. The employee contribution rate and employer
but does not guarantee the matching credit are adopted by the governing body of each
ultimate benefit amount. municipality participating in TMRS. Each month, participating
cities withhold a percentage of each employee’s gross salary
and deposit it into a TMRS account held for the employee. The
amount withheld is 5%, 6% or 7% of gross salary, as determined by each city. (A few cities are grandfathered at
the 3% contribution level.) All member contributions are tax-deferred. Employer matching credits are set at 100%,
150%, or 200%. Interest is credited on the employee’s account annually at a rate determined by the TMRS Board
based on the System’s investment income.
In most TMRS cities, employees become vested once they have five years of service credit (a few cities have
elected to maintain a 10-year vesting provision). Once vested, if employment is terminated, but member contribu-

20 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 INNOVATIVE PLAN DESIGN

tions are not withdrawn, membership in TMRS continues and member contributions continue to earn interest
until retirement. Employees may retire at age 60 or older with 5 years of service credit (or 10 years for a few cities)
or at any age with 20 or 25 years of service credit, depending on their city’s option.
At retirement, member contributions and credited interest are combined with the city’s matching funds and
other granted credits. TMRS then calculates a monthly retirement annuity based on these amounts and estimated
life expectancy at retirement. Plan members have multiple annuity options from which to choose, including
single-life annuities, joint and survivor annuities, and partial lump-sum options, all guaranteeing a monthly
payment for the retiree’s life.
It is important to note that, under this plan design, the contribution made by the employer is not simply the
match on employee contributions. Rather the employer’s contribution is determined annually by an actuarial
valuation. The employer rate is based on the mortality and service experience of all employees covered by the
fund, rates of return on plan assets, and the demographics of each municipality’s workforce.

n Ohio Public Employees Retirement System

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) is a multiple-employer retirement plan for Ohio state
and local government employees who are not covered by another retirement system. OPERS was established in
1935, and currently provides benefits to more than 3,700 public employers covering over 382,000 active members
and 161,000 retirees and beneficiaries. Employees covered by the plans include general employees, public safety
employees, and law enforcement officers.
Prior to 2000, OPERS provided a DB plan to all members based on salary and years of service. In 2000, the
Ohio legislature enacted legislation that established two new retirement plans. As a result, OPERS now provides
benefits to employees through a choice of three plans: the Traditional Plan, the Member-Directed Plan, and the
Combined Plan.
The Traditional Plan is a DB plan providing benefits based on 2.2% of final average salary times the first 30
years of service and 2.5% for years of service over 30. Final average salary is averaged over the three highest years.
Members are eligible for full retirement benefits at age 60 with 5 years of service, age 55 with 25 years of service, or
any age with 30 years of service. Members retiring before age 65 with less than 30 years of service receive a reduced
benefit. Payment options include single and joint life annuities, period certain annuities and partial lump sum
options. Benefits also include an annual 3% cost-of-living adjustment, based on the original benefit. A portion of
employer contributions are credited to a partially pre-funded retiree health plan.
The Member-Directed Plan is a DC plan in which employer and employee contributions are made to the
members’ individual accounts and invested at the members’ direction. A portion of the employer contribution
is credited to a retiree medical account which vests gradually over a 10 year period. Employer and employee
contributions are mandatory and made at the same rates as contributions to the Traditional Plan. Employees
vest immediately in their own contributions and vest in employer contributions over a 5-year period. Members
select investments from nine professionally managed investment options. At retirement, members can convert

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 21

 Chapter 4

their accumulated account balance into an annuity (using the same payment options as provided through the
Traditional Plan), or can leave their account with OPERS and draw it down at a later date. If taken as an annuity,
the retiree will receive the same annual cost-of-living adjustments provided through the Traditional Plan.
The Combined Plan provides a DB benefit of 1.0% of final average salary times all years of service, with final
average salary defined in the same manner as the Traditional Plan. The eligibility conditions for retirement ben-
efits are the same as for the Traditional Plan, as are the benefit payment options. The DB portion of the Combined
Plan is funded entirely through employer contributions, made at the same rate as for the Traditional Plan. The DC
portion is managed in the same way as for the Member-Directed Plan, but only receives member contributions.

n Washington State Teachers’ Retirement System

In 1995, the Washington State Legislature created a third retirement plan for members of the Teachers’ Retirement
System (TRS), effective for all public school teachers hired after July 1, 1996. Under the plan, known as Plan 3,
member contributions finance a DC component, and employer contributions finance a DB component. The plan
covers persons qualified to teach and who are employed by a public school in an instructional, administrative, or
supervisory position.
Teachers hired before July 1996, who were in TRS Plan 2 (a full DB plan) were given the option of transferring
from Plan 2 to Plan 3 by January 1, 1998. Approximately 70% of eligible members made the initial transfer. For
a member who elected the transfer, the amount transferred to the DC plan included the member’s accumulated
contributions plus interest. In addition, the member received a transfer payment of 65% on their accrued contri-
butions.
Several factors were considered in the adoption of this hybrid plan. Adding a DC component gave TRS mem-
bers greater portability for their retirement assets as well as control over both contribution rates and investment
decisions. The DB component was retained to give a level of security to the overall plan, providing a guaranteed
benefit funded by employer contributions. Creating a hybrid plan was seen as a way of adding flexibility and
portability to the existing retirement plan, while maintaining a level of financial security.
Under the DB portion of Plan 3, the retirement benefit is based on 1.0% of average final compensation times
years of service credit. Average final compensation is the monthly average of the member’s 60 consecutive highest-
paid service creditable months. To receive full benefits from the DB plan, members must be age 65 and have at
least 10 years of service credit. Members who transferred from Plan 2 to Plan 3 and had 5 years of service at the
time of transfer were immediately vested in the DB portion. Actuarially reduced benefits are available between
the ages of 55 and 65. Members who separate from service with 20 years of service credit, but who are ineligible
to retire, will have their benefit increased by 3% a year until they attain retirement or early retirement age.
Under the DC component of Plan 3, employee contributions are mandatory and vest immediately. Members
choose from six contribution rate options, ranging from 5% to 15% of pay, with several options allowing variations
based on age (e.g., 5% up to age 35, 6% for ages 35 through 44, and 7.5% for ages 45 and older). New TRS members
have 90 days to select an option; otherwise, Option A (5% of pay at all ages) automatically applies. Employees

22 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

 INNOVATIVE PLAN DESIGN

may elect to have their DC plan contributions invested by either the Washington State Investment Board (WSIB)
or through a self-directed investment program managed by a third party administrator. Contributions invested
by the WSIB are placed into the WSIB’s total allocation portfolio and valued based on the performance of all the
investments in the portfolio. In the self-directed investment program,
members can choose to invest in a single investment fund, split their
contributions among several fund types, or select one of three preset Employees may elect to have
portfolios composed of various mixes of the investments. their DC plan contributions
Initially, Plan 3 offered a gain-sharing feature. When earnings
for the state retirement fund averaged more than 10% over a 4-year
invested by either the
period, the amount in excess of the 10% was declared “extraordinary Washington State Investment
gains.” A portion of these gains was paid to members of Plan 3 who Board (WSIB) or through a self-
met certain service credit and DC account level requirements. The directed investment program
gain-sharing payments were made in January of even-numbered
managed by a third party
years. However, in 2007, the state legislature repealed the gain-sharing
feature. The last payment was made to Plan 3 members on January 1, administrator.
2008, amounting to about $270.69 per year of service per member.
Beginning July 1, 2007, newly hired teachers have the choice of selecting the full DB plan (Plan 2) or the
DB/DC plan (Plan 3). This change was put into effect by the same legislation that repealed gain sharing.

n Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association

The Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) was established in 1931 by the state legislature
and provides retirement and other benefits to employees of more than 400 government agencies and public
entities in the state. It covers approximately 193,400 active employees, including general state employees, most
teachers, local government employees, judges, state troopers, and others. It also provides retirement benefits to
more than 78,000 retirees and other benefit recipients. Participation in PERA by local governments is optional.
Beginning in 1995, PERA began providing benefits through a hybrid retirement plan. Under this plan,
employees at retirement may receive the higher of the DB benefit or the “money purchase” benefit. The DB benefit
is 2.5% of the member’s highest three-year average salary times years of service (up to 100% of highest average
salary). Unreduced DB benefits are available to members at ages 55-64 if years of age plus service equal 85 or
more, or at age 65 with at least 5 years of service.
The PERA money purchase benefit is similar to a DC plan, but with several differences. Like a DC plan,
employee contributions (currently 8% of pay) are credited to individual member accounts. However, unlike a DC
plan, the interest on the contributions is credited at a rate determined by the PERA Board, limited to an annual
maximum of 5%. The money purchase benefit is determined by combining the member’s accumulated account
balance at retirement (including contributions plus interest) with a 100% match by the employer, and converting
this total amount into an equivalent lifetime benefit.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 23

 Employees who terminate service upon reaching retirement eligibility receive the higher of their DB formula
benefit or the money purchase benefit. Employees who terminate service and withdraw their account before
retirement eligibility receive their contributions with interest plus a 50% employer match on the total amount.
The PERA hybrid plan was adopted for several reasons. It offers better benefits for shorter-term members
who separate from service many years before retirement. It also helps members make a more informed choice
about their benefits, by allowing them to choose between a DB or DC benefit at the time they separate from
service or retire, rather than when they begin employment. Members are also rewarded for leaving their money
in the retirement system until retirement, and they receive a 5% rate of interest, not subject to market fluctuations.
Moreover, lifetime retirement benefits paid by PERA receive annual cost-of-living increases.

24 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems

CHAPTER 5.

Conclusions
The retirement plans of state and local governments have evolved over the last century as a result of the changing
financial, demographic, administrative, and political environment in which they operate. These pressures con-
tinue and will influence public plan design well into the future.
However, the decision to change plan design is complicated and should be made only after a careful consid-
eration of the long-term costs and risks, especially with regard to:

n The government’s ability to attract and retain qualified employees in order to provide citizens with neces-
sary public services, such as public safety and education;
n The plan’s ability to provide long service members with adequate income throughout retirement. Such
benefits help sustain the local economy and prevent retired public employees from having to rely on
public income assistance programs funded with future taxpayer dollars.

In addition, the plan design should pool longevity risks in order to lower the cost of providing lifetime
benefits to the average cost of the covered group. Moreover, the plan design should mitigate investment risks and
costs by broadly diversifying investments and negotiating investment management fees.
In short, decisions should be based on a clear understanding of what outcomes the current design influences
and how it allocates costs and risks. Retirement plan design represents a significant public policy. Therefore, the
plan sponsor contemplating change must understand the policy implications of any new proposal as well as those
of the current retirement plan design. To better understand the policy implications, plan sponsors are encouraged
to consider the following actions:

n Survey active and retired members of the current retirement plan.

n Measure the satisfaction and confidence of those members.
n Understand the needs of retirement system employers and members.
n Understand comparative private sector plans and their goals.
n Adopt a formal policy for the retirement system plan design reflecting the plan sponsor’s objectives and
those of the active and retired members.
n Develop any retirement plan changes consistent with objectives.

With the proper analysis and an understanding of the needs of a changing population, carefully considered
plan design changes can produce excellent results for all stakeholders.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 25

26 National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
Bibliograpy
American Academy of Actuaries. The Value of Defined National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
Benefit Plans. July 2006. Comparison of Selected Features of Public Sector
Arizona State Retirement System. A Comparative Hybrid Retirement Benefit Plans. April 2007.
Analysis of Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
Retirement Plans. September 22, 2006. Current Trends in Public Retirement Benefits: Benefit
Bleakney, Thomas P. Retirement Systems for Public Provisions and Changes for 76 Large Public Pension
Employees. Pension Research Council. Homewood, Plans: Preliminary Report. Prepared by Debby Kaller.
Illinois: Irwin, 1972. April 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Flow National Conference of Public Employee Retirement
of Funds Accounts of the United States, Annual Flows Systems. The Top Ten Advantages of Maintaining
and Outstandings, Third Quarter 2007. December Defined Benefit Pensions. May 2007.
6, 2007. Rajnes, David. “State and Local Retirement Plans:
Brainard, Keith. Public Fund Survey: Summary of Innovation and Renovation.” EBRI Issue Brief No.
Findings for FY 2006. National Association of State 235. Employee Benefit Research Institute. July 2001.
Retirement Administrators. October 2007. The Segal Company. “The Aging of Aquarius: The
Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company, “The Advantages Baby Boom Generation Matures.” Segal Special
of Risk Pooling for Financing Retirement Benefits.” Report. Washington, DC. February 2001.
GRS Insight, July 2006. State of North Carolina, Department of State Treasurer,
Helman, Ruth, Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland. Retirement Systems Division. Best for North Carolina,
“The Retirement System in Transition: The 2007 Best for State Employees: Analysis of Options for
Retirement Confidence Survey.” EBRI Issue Brief North Carolina’s State Employee Pension Plan. May
No. 304. Employee Benefit Research Institute. April 6, 2005.
2007. U.S. Census Bureau. State and Local Government Public
Mitchell, Olivia S. and Edwin C. Hustead, ed. Pensions Employee Retirement Systems, FY 2006. October
in the Public Sector. Philadelphia: University of 2007. (www.census.gov/govs/www/retire.html)
Pennsylvania Press, 2001. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and
Munnell, Alicia H. and Mauricia Soto. “State and Labor. Pension Task Force Report on Public Employee
Local Pensions are Different from Private Plans.” Retirement Systems. 95th Cong., 2d sess. Washington,
ssue Brief. Center for State and Local Government DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
Excellence. November 2007. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Employee Benefits in State and Local Governments,
1998. December 2000. Bulletin 2531.

The Evolution of Public Pension Plans: Past, Present and Future 27

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
444 N. Capitol St NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20001
Ph: 202-624-1456 • Fax: 202-624-1439
Website: www.ncpers.org • Email: info@ncpers.org