Pension Sustainability: Hawaii
Pensions Policy
Analysis of Hawaii's policies
As of June 30, 2015, the most recent date for which an actuarial valuation is available, Hawaii's pension system for teachers is 62.2 percent funded, an increase of 3.2 percentage points since NCTQ's last report. Its current pension debt is about $13,000 per pupil throughout the state. It also has a 25-year amortization period, meaning that if the plan earns its assumed rate of return of 7.65 percent and makes its full actuarially determined contribution payments, it would take the state more than 28 years to pay off its unfunded liabilities. Hawaii's amortization period falls below the regulatory benchmark of a 30-year period, though its funding level is too low. The state's system is not financially sustainable according to actuarial benchmarks.
In addition, Hawaii commits excessive resources toward its teachers' retirement system. The current employer contribution rate of 17.0 percent is too high, even before the additional 6.2 percent contribution that the state must make to Social Security. The rate is determined according to statutory requirements, which mandate that the employee and employer contribution rates are set with the intention to fund this year's expenses (the normal cost) plus any amount needed to amortize any unfunded liabilities over a 30-year period; when the amortization period is over 30 years the employer rates are subject to adjustment. There are currently no more scheduled rate increases in the future, however, and the current statutory rate is below the rate actuarially required rate of 17.89 percent to pay down the system's liabilities. If this continues, then debt will become larger in the future. The current mandatory employee contribution rate to the defined benefit plan of 8 percent is slightly high.
Recommendations for Hawaii
Ensure that the pension system is financially sustainable.
The state would be better off if its system was over 95 percent funded and had an amortization period of less than 30 years to allow more protection during financial downturns. However, Hawaii should consider ways to improve its funding level without raising the contributions of teachers. In fact, the state should work to decrease employer contributions. Committing excessive resources to pension benefits can negatively affect teacher recruitment and retention. 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
Hawaii was helpful in providing information that enhanced this analysis.
Updated: December 2017
-
Hawaii
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