This report presents information from the Sixth Annual Survey of State Higher Education Officers, and once again provides information on performance funding, budgeting, and reporting in all 50 states. Survey results show the triumph of performance reporting and the trials of performance budgeting and funding. The bad budgets for higher education that were revealed in the previous survey spurred the rapid advance of performance reporting and stifled the steady climb of performance budgeting and funding. Nearly 90% of states now have some form of performance reporting, an increase of nearly 50% in the past 2 years. Survey results suggest that a number of state legislators see performance reporting as a "no cost" alternative to performance funding and budgeting. The survey results this year show some slippage in support for performance budgeting and performance funding. While last year it looked as though tight budgets might encourage performance funding, this year, the state budgets for higher education became so bad that legislators balked at allocating even small sums to campus performance. In 1999 the survey included questions about the third leg of accountability for higher education, performance reporting. Performance funding, budgeting, and reporting represent the main methods of assuring state accountability for public higher education. Findings from this year's survey suggest that state policymakers increasingly view publicizing results (performance reporting) as a sufficient consequence without the need for budgeting or funding. One appendix contains a chart of state performance budgeting plans, and the other contains the survey. (Contains 18 tables and 17 references.) (Author/SLD)