Pension Sustainability: Rhode Island
Pensions Policy
Analysis of Rhode Island's policies
As of June 30, 2015, the most recent date for which an actuarial valuation is available, Rhode Island's pension system for teachers is 58.8 percent funded, an increase of 0.7 percentage point since NCTQ's last report. Its current pension debt is $18,700 per pupil throughout the state. It also has a 22.3-year amortization period. This means that if the plan earns its assumed rate of return of 7.50 percent and makes its full actuarially determined contribution payments, it would take the state 22.3 years to pay off its unfunded liabilities. While its amortization period meets requirements, Rhode Island's funding level is too low. The state's system is not financially sustainable according to actuarial benchmarks.
In addition, Rhode Island commits excessive resources toward its teachers' retirement system. The current employer contribution rate of 23.13 percent is extremely high, in light of the fact that most local districts are contributing an additional 6.2 percent to Social Security. The employer rate is determined according to statutory requirements, which mandate that the employer contribution rate must equal the cost to fund this year's expenses (the normal cost) plus any amount needed to amortize any unfunded liabilities over a closed period ending June 30, 2029. Before minor adjustments, the state pays 40 percent of the employer contribution and the local districts pay 60 percent. While these rates allow the state to pay off liabilities within a relatively short period, it does so at great cost, precluding Rhode Island from spending those funds on other, more immediate means to retain talented teachers. Teachers contribute 3.75 percent to the defined benefit plan and 5 percent to the defined contribution plan, plus 2 percent if the member is not enrolled in Social Security. The combined rate of 8.75 percent for employees enrolled in Social Security and 10.75 percent for teachers not contributing to Social Security are both reasonable.
Recommendations for Rhode Island
Ensure that the pension system is financially sustainable.
The state would be better off if its system was over 95 percent funded to allow more protection during financial downturns. While Rhode Island is commended for implementing a hybrid plan that is more fiscally sensible than its old plan, Rhode Island still faces large unfunded liabilities from its old plan. It should continue to seek ways to improve its funding level without raising the contributions of school districts and teachers. Committing excessive resources to pension benefits can negatively affect teacher recruitment and retention and crowd out funding for other areas in education. Improving funding levels necessitates, in part, systemic changes in the state's pension system. The goals on pension flexibility and pension neutrality provide suggestions for pension system structures that are both sustainable and fair.
State response to our analysis
Rhode Island did not respond to repeated requests to review this analysis.
Updated: December 2017
-
Rhode Island
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
- Teaching Methods
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Deficiencies
- Adolescent Literacy
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Deficiencies
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
- Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers
- Provisional and Emergency Licensure
- Licensure for Substitute Teachers
- Supporting New Teachers
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
How we graded
Research rationale
Under defined benefit systems, states have made an obligation to fund fixed benefits for teachers at retirement. However, the financial health and sustainability of many states' systems are questionable at best. Some systems carry high levels of unfunded liabilities, with no strategy to pay these liabilities down in a reasonable period, as defined by standard accounting practices.[3] Without reform, funding is unlikely to keep up with promised benefits and these systems will become increasingly vulnerable to collapse.
Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in their careers. By overcommitting employer resources to retirement benefits, these plans often require districts to depress salaries and restrict incentives. The contribution of employers to their workers' retirement benefits is a valuable benefit, important to ensuring that individuals have sufficient retirement savings. Compensation resources, however, are not unlimited, and they must fund both current salaries and future retirement benefits. Mandated employer contributions to many states' teacher pension systems are extremely high, leaving districts with little flexibility to be more innovative with their compensation strategies.[4] Lower mandatory employer contribution rates (in states where they are too high; in some states they are shamefully low) would free up valuable compensation resources to ensure pension systems are more sustainable and equitable for all teachers. In addition, some states require high employee contributions; the impact this has on teachers' paychecks may affect retention, especially early in teachers' careers.[5]
The burden placed on districts to fund unsustainable pension systems is further exacerbated for those in states where teachers also participate in Social Security, requiring the district to pay even more toward teacher retirement. While retirement savings in addition to Social Security are necessary, states are mandating contributions to two inflexible plans rather than permitting options for teachers or their employing districts.[6]
[1] Doherty, K. M., Jacobs, S., & Lueken, M. F. (2017, February). Lifting the pension fog: What teachers and taxpayers need to know about the teacher pension crisis. Retrieved from National Council on Teacher Quality website: https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Lifting_the_Pension_Fog
[2] For an overview of the current state of teacher pensions, the various incentives they create, and suggested solutions, see Costrell, R. M., & Podgursky, M. (2011, February). Reforming k-12 educator pensions: A labor market perspective. New York, NY: TIAA-CREF Institute. Retrieved from https://www.tiaainstitute.org/public/institute/research/briefs/institute_pb_reforming_K-12_educator_pensions.html
[3] NCTQ's analysis of the financial sustainability of state pension systems is based on actuarial benchmarks promulgated by government and private accounting standards boards. For more information see U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Government Accounting Standards Board statement No. 25. Retrieved from http://www.gasb.org/st/summary/gstsm25.html
[4] Costrell, R. M., & Podgursky, M. (2011, February). Reforming k-12 educator pensions: A labor market perspective. New York, NY: TIAA-CREF Institute. Retrieved from https://www.tiaainstitute.org/public/institute/research/briefs/institute_pb_reforming_K-12_educator_pensions.html
[5] For further evidence supporting NCTQ teacher pension standards, see The Segal Group, Inc. (2010). Public employees' retirement system of the state of Nevada: Analysis and comparison of defined benefit and defined contribution retirement plans. Retrieved from https://www.nvpers.org/public/executiveOfficer/2010-DB-DC%20Study%20By%20Segal.pdf
[6] For additional information on state pension systems, see Loeb, S. & Miller, L. (2006). State teacher policies: What are they, what are their effects, and what are their implications for school finance? Stanford University: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~sloeb/papers/Loeb_Miller.pdf; and Hansen, J. (2008, May). Teacher pensions: A background paper. Committee for Economic Development. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502293