Skip to content

Resource Center

The Resource Center contains a wide collection of reports, publications, and data from Connecticut and national sources. To navigate through the Resource Center, use the keyword search below or browse by selecting a specific category using the drop-down menu below the Featured post.

Monthly reports from the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Fiscal Analysis detailing its most recent estimated General Fund budget projections.

Read More

This issue brief, based on a November 2015 comprehensive report from researchers at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, examines Connecticut's State Employees Retirement System (SERS) and the State's significant unfunded liabilities associated with the system. Along with providing a brief history of funding for SERS and offering alternatives meant to shore up the system's finances and improve the overall flexibility of Connecticut's budget, the issue brief examines three major factors that contributed to SERS' unfunded liability. These factors include: 1) legacy costs from benefits promised before the systems were pre-funded; 2) inadequate contributions once the State decided to pre-fund; and 3) low investment returns relative to the assumed return since 2000.

Read More

A comprehensive report, from researchers at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, that examines the fiscal health of Connecticut's two largest public sector retirement systems: the State Employees Retirement System (SERS) and the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). In addition to projecting the systems' finances going forward and presenting "alternatives to shore up the systems' finances and improve budget flexibility," the report, which was requested by the State of Connecticut, looks at the State's unfunded liabilities for both systems and the factors that have caused those unfunded liabilities to increase significantly over the years. The report finds "[t]hree factors underlie the current unfunded liability of SERS and TRS: 1) legacy costs from benefits promised before the systems were pre-funded; 2) inadequate contributions once the State decided to pre-fund; and 3) low investment returns relative to the assumed return since 2000."

Read More