Trina Prufer: The Importance of “Buffers” in a Non SS Pension System

Trina Prufer's speech to STRS board

June 25, 2026

My name is Trina Prufer and I am a retired school psychologist. I am here today to speak for the invisible members of STRS—the disabled, the elderly and surviving spouses. These are vulnerable STRS beneficiaries, who lack Social Security, and some can no longer afford to stay in their own homes or pay for basic necessities. They could be your mother, grandfather or neighbor.

While I appreciate that STRS recently approved a 1.6% COLA under the Sustainable Benefit Plan framework, the reality is that a flat, sweeping across-the-board percentage leaves those most vulnerable behind. When the fund faces financial insufficiency -which seems to be its permanent state-STRS wipes out or reduces inflation protection for everyone equally.

But other states have figured out a better way. They use carve outs or “buffers” to shield those most in need. There are many different solutions available.

One approach, called a capped COLA base, is to pay a COLA on the first $20,000, $25,000 or even $40,000 of a retiree’s benefit. This means a lower-income retiree or survivor receives crucial inflation protection, while high-earning administrators take a pause on the remainder of their larger checks. This model targets the money exactly where it is needed most to prevent poverty.

Another example is a guaranteed benefit floor for those who fall below a specific threshold, triggering an automatic safety-net adjustment. A variation of this approach uses a catch-up provision, ensuring that the oldest retirees receive a guaranteed percentage of their original benefit, adjusted for inflation. If this sounds familiar, it is because it was in a previous version of the ORC.

The truth is that disability and survivor benefits represent a fraction of STRS’s multi-billion-dollar budget. Members are told STRS cannot afford a full 2% or 3% COLA for everyone across the board. However, STRS can afford to protect those receiving the least.

Perhaps the place to begin is by conducting a deep dive analysis for various cohorts, looking at replacement rates and projecting them into the future. STRS chose a very harsh “all-or-nothing” approach which does the most harm to those who can least afford it. This makes no sense when lives are at stake and targeted solutions are both effective and affordable. Board members must remember that retirees were blindsided in learning that reform legislation meant we would be living without adequate inflation protection for the rest of our days. It is time to do the right thing.