There are growing pressures for community colleges and regional universities to accommodate the rise in student enrollment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate access and funding issues across public higher education institutions in the United States. Responses to a survey, conducted by the Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama, represented the perceptions of the 51 state community college directors. Results showed that a majority of the respondents agreed that the recession created a decline in state funding for higher education and continued to be a primary concern; many institutions increased tuition due to financial constraints; capping enrollment has not occurred in smaller states but was trending in larger states; many universities were strongly encouraging students to enroll in community colleges; and, Pell grant increases contributed to college completion efforts and access for under-served populations. Additionally, high unemployment and the economic recession overwhelmed community colleges in terms of workplace training demands, resulting in the elimination of high-cost programs and an increase in streamlined job (non-credit) training programs. Findings also showed that for-profit colleges did not have the increasing enrollment challenges that community colleges considered. Community colleges will need to determine ways to increase funding without jeopardizing access for students in higher education. Contents of this paper include: (1) Introduction (James E. McLean); (2) Foreword (Charles N. Earl); (3) Executive Summary; (4) Context for the 2010 Survey (Stephen G. Katsinas); (5) What Does It All Mean? (Janice N. Friedel); (6) Responses to the Survey (Reaction from Michael T. Miller, Reflections on the Impact of These Findings on Hispanic Serving Institutions--Reaction from Bren D. Cejda, Reaction from Byron Cook, Response to 2010 National Survey of Finance and Access Issues by Roger Goodman, Higher Education Access and Finance: A Missouri Perspective by Zelema Harris, and Reaction from Daniel J. Hurley); (7) Methodology; (8) Caveats to Interpreting Survey Results; (9) Findings: Part One--The Year Just Concluded (FY 2009-10); (10) Findings: Part Two--Predictions for Next Year (FY 2010-11); and (11) Part Three: Special Section. Four appendixes include: (1) States with and without Significant Local Support; (2) General Budget Outlook; (3) Additional Comments; and (4) References. (Contains 26 tables and 7 charts.) [Abstract modified to meet ERIC guidelines.]