Updated May 2026 · DOL Form 5500 + Public Plans Database
Grade D Pension Plans, At Risk
9 plans rated Grade D. These plans have significant funding gaps. Participants should monitor them closely for benefit changes and review the most recent Annual Funding Notice.
Grade D (At Risk, score band 35–49/100) — 9 pension plans currently sit in this tier. These plans have significant funding gaps. Participants should monitor them closely for benefit changes and review the most recent Annual Funding Notice.
Grade D plans face meaningful funding pressure: ratios in the 60-70% range, often combined with declining trajectory or elevated PBGC risk. 9 plans fall here.
The LakeQuality pension-health rubric weights funding ratio (50%), multi-year funding trend (30%), and PBGC risk classification (20%) into a single 0-100 composite. The letter grade summarizes the composite. For participants, the grade is a triage signal — useful for identifying which plans warrant deeper review. The plan-specific page surfaces the underlying funding-history, contribution-vs-benefit-payment cash flow, and PBGC status that drive the composite.
What Grade D Means in Practice
Grade D plans show meaningful underfunding alongside concerning trend signals. Funding ratios typically run 55%–75% with declining or flat 3-year trends, and PBGC risk classifications are moderate-to-high. Participants in Grade D plans should request the most recent Annual Funding Notice (mailed annually under ERISA Section 101(f)) and review the plan's Schedule SB or MB filing for the actuarial assumptions driving the reported ratio.
Across the listed Grade D plans, the average funding ratio is 42.6% and aggregate unfunded liability totals $187.0B. The Pension Health Score combines three signals: funding ratio from DOL Form 5500 Schedule SB or MB for ERISA plans and the Public Plans Database for state and municipal systems (50% of the composite), 3-year funding trend measuring the change in funding ratio across recent valuations (30%), and PBGC risk level from PBGC publications (20%, set to low for public plans not subject to PBGC).
A grade is not a recommendation. Participants concerned about a specific plan should review their most recent Annual Funding Notice (mailed under ERISA Section 101(f)) and consult a fee-only fiduciary advisor for plan-specific decisions. PensionRisk does not provide investment advice and does not predict pension failures.
Plans Currently Rated Grade D
| # | Plan Name | Type | State | Participants | Funding Ratio | Unfunded Gap | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Illinois Teachers Retirement System (TRS) State of Illinois | public | IL | 424,000 | 44.7% | $77.7B | 44 |
| 2 | State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) State of Illinois | public | IL | 218,000 | 44.1% | $28.5B | 42 |
| 3 | State Employees Retirement System of Illinois (SERS) State of Illinois | public | IL | 152,000 | 40.4% | $29.2B | 40 |
| 4 | Connecticut State Employees Retirement System (SERS) State of Connecticut | public | CT | 112,000 | 38.2% | $23.0B | 39 |
| 5 | Bakery & Confectionery Union Industry International Pension Fund BCTGM International Union | multiemployer | MD | 100,402 | 41.8% | $4.1B | 45 |
| 6 | United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan UMWA | multiemployer | DC | 73,913 | 51.5% | $3.1B | 49 |
| 7 | Chicago Teachers Pension Fund City of Chicago | public | IL | 69,000 | 42.8% | $16.6B | 44 |
| 8 | Dallas Police & Fire Pension System City of Dallas | public | TX | 11,200 | 45.1% | $2.9B | 48 |
| 9 | Judges Retirement System of Illinois State of Illinois | public | IL | 3,100 | 35.2% | $1.8B | 37 |
How Grades Are Calculated
The Pension Health Score is a 0–100 composite that maps to letter grades: A (80+), B (65–79), C (50–64), D (35–49), F (below 35). Funding ratio at 100% scores 100; at 50% scores 0; with linear interpolation in between. Trend is scored from −10 percentage points (score 0) to +10 percentage points (score 100). PBGC risk is scored 100 (low), 65 (moderate), 30 (high), 0 (critical). The three factors are weighted 50/30/20 to produce the composite. Read the full methodology.
Browse by State
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a Grade D pension plan mean?
A Grade D pension plan is underfunded and showing concerning trends (Pension Health Score band 35–49/100). The grade combines three factors: funding ratio (50% of the composite), 3-year funding trend (30%), and PBGC risk level (20%). Grade D plans show meaningful underfunding alongside concerning trend signals. Funding ratios typically run 55%–75% with declining or flat 3-year trends, and PBGC risk classifications are moderate-to-high. Participants in Grade D plans should request the most recent Annual Funding Notice (mailed annually under ERISA Section 101(f)) and review the plan's Schedule SB or MB filing for the actuarial assumptions driving the reported ratio.
How many pension plans are rated Grade D?
PensionRisk currently tracks 9 pension plans at Grade D. The top 9 are listed below by participant count and funding context, covering 1,163,615 active and retired participants in aggregate.
Should I be worried about a Grade D pension?
These plans have significant funding gaps. Participants should monitor them closely for benefit changes and review the most recent Annual Funding Notice.
What is the average funding ratio of Grade D plans?
Across the listed Grade D plans, the average funding ratio is 42.6%. Aggregate unfunded liability totals $187.0B across plans below 100% funded. None of these figures are projections — they are the values plan sponsors filed with regulators.
Where does the grading data come from?
Funding ratios come from DOL EBSA Form 5500 Schedule SB or MB for ERISA-covered plans, the Boston College Center for Retirement Research Public Plans Database for state and municipal systems, and PBGC publications for at-risk and Critical-status designations. The current dataset reflects filings available as of May 2026. PensionRisk is a data and education site — none of the content here is investment advice.
Grade D (At Risk, score band 35–49/100) — 9 pension plans currently sit in this tier. These plans have significant funding gaps. Participants should monitor them closely for benefit changes and review the most recent Annual Funding Notice.