Funding for public higher education has been cut in Kentucky in the decade starting 2008 (Spalding, 2019). Due to several contributing factors, including entitlement programs, healthcare costs, the great recession, and other competing demands at the state level, this is a nationwide trend and is not predicted to reverse any time soon. This funding decrease forces institutions of higher education to look at other sources and/or methods of funding to continue their missions. Most often, funding outside of the state and tuition, are restricted and program based. Any type of public funds and program-based grants comes with the understanding that accountability be at the highest levels, and the cost in administering these controls and regulations are paid for by the organization. However, when state dollars are decreased, the regulations and mandates do not decrease in the same proportion. This creates a burden that can theoretically become cost prohibitive if the percentage of funding drops below a certain breakeven point. What is the net impact of public funding for higher education, and is it positive or negative? This study is designed to highlight the views that college presidents and chief financial officers have within the 16 colleges of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) about public funded accountability and regulations. This research can be used to show support for an increase in funding higher education by states across the country in highlighting that increased funding will be perceived to have a greater impact to institutions of higher education and the local economies. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]