This comparative study synthesizes data from a national study which examined differences among states in their governance structures, and asked if differences in performance were related to governing structures and whether governance structure affected strategies of state policymakers. The seven states examined were grouped into four governance categories: (1) federal systems, those with institutional- and multicampus-system governing boards and a coordinating board (Illinois and Texas); (2) unified systems, those with a single governing board responsible for all public institutions (Georgia); (3) confederated systems, those with a planning/coordinating agency but also governing boards of multicampus subsystems (California, Florida, and New York); and (4) confederated institutions, those that have institutional governing boards but lack a centralized agency with substantial responsibility (Michigan). The report concludes that there is a strong link between governance structures and affordability for families; there is no evidence that any one system has a lower cost per student; there is no evidence that some structures attract stronger leaders; and that state boards which are part of higher education and also part of state government do best at balancing public interests and professional/institutional concerns. Appendices list individuals involved and describe quantitative measures used. (Contains approximately 350 references.) (DB)