From Data to Decisions: Participant Data Integrity in the 2026 Public Retirement Landscape
By: John Bikus, The Berwyn Group
This article explores how participant data quietly erodes over time, and why missed deaths and missing participants are often early warning signs of broader risk. It highlights the impact of geographic dispersion and outlines how forward-looking plans are shifting from reactive fixes to defensible data governance. The result: greater confidence in the decisions that matter most as public retirement systems look toward 2026.
As public retirement systems look ahead to 2026, economic uncertainty, regulatory scrutiny, and public accountability are converging to place greater pressure on fiduciaries. In this environment, participant data integrity is no longer a background administrative function, it is infrastructure that supports nearly every critical decision a plan makes.
Participant data rarely fails all at once. It erodes quietly through time, life events, and incomplete visibility, and many plans recognize the gaps only when a decision needs to be made and confidence in the data matters most.
Geographic Dispersion Is a Structural Challenge
Public pension plans serve participant populations spanning decades and diverse geographies. Members retire, relocate, and receive benefits far from where they originally worked. This geographic dispersion introduces complexity that is often underestimated, particularly when plans rely heavily on state-level or jurisdiction-specific data sources.
The Berwyn Group recently conducted a mortality review for one of the largest public pension funds in the country, spanning more than 336,000 participant records. Nearly 10,000 decedents were identified. Notably, 18% of those deaths occurred outside of the fund’s home state, a meaningful proportion that highlights the limitations of relying solely on in-state data for population-wide oversight.
For plans managing hundreds of thousands of participants, even modest geographic blind spots can compound into material risk over time.
Deaths and Missing Participants as Indicators of Data Decay
Missed deaths and missing participants are often addressed as discrete operational issues. In practice, both are indicators of participant data decay.
Deaths may go unrecorded due to delayed reporting, incomplete coverage, or insufficient validation. Missing participants frequently emerge after years of address changes, limited engagement, or outdated contact information. These outcomes are rarely the result of inattention; more often, they reflect systems designed for periodic review rather than continuous oversight.
Addressing these challenges only when they surface may resolve immediate concerns, but it does little to reduce long-term exposure.
From Data Maintenance to Data Governance
As plans prepare for 2026, many are shifting from episodic data maintenance toward more structured data governance. This shift does not require perfect data or unlimited resources. It requires clarity and consistency.
Effective participant data governance typically begins with:
- Defined accountability for data quality
- Clear standards for validation and documentation
- Risk-based prioritization of data issues
- Alignment between data practices and fiduciary responsibility
The objective is not perfection, but defensibility — the ability to demonstrate what was known, what actions were taken, and why those actions were appropriate.
Measuring Progress Pragmatically
A maturity-based framework can help plans assess their current state:
- Reactive responses to identified issues
- Periodic, scheduled reviews
- Programmatic monitoring with defined processes
- Proactive oversight tied to participant lifecycle events
- Audit-ready documentation supporting fiduciary decisions
Many operate between stages. Progress is incremental, but measurable.
Data Integrity as a Strategic Advantage
As public retirement systems navigate the uncertainties shaping 2026, participant data integrity provides a stabilizing advantage. Accurate, well-governed data supports benefit administration, actuarial assumptions, audit responses, and board-level communication.
Deaths and missing participants will never be eliminated entirely. However, when plans address the root causes of data decay, these challenges become more predictable and manageable. In an increasingly complex environment, the strength of a plan’s governance will be defined not only by market performance, but by the quality of the decisions it can confidently support — and the data behind them.
About the author: John Bikus, President, leads The Berwyn Group’s efforts to bring accuracy, validation, and innovation to death audit and participant location services for pension funds. He previously co-founded and grew two pioneering data companies — ObitData.com and Legacy.com — which helped transform how organizations and consumers access and verify obituary information.