The seventh annual Survey of State Higher Education Finance Officers (SHEFOs) shows the continuing triumph of performance reporting and the continuing trials of performance budgeting and funding in higher education. Responses from SHEFOs from all 50 states show that performance reporting, which now is used in all but 4 states, is by far the preferred approach to accountability for higher education. Bad budgets for states and higher education continue to erode support for performance funding and budgeting. More polices makers in state government and higher education agencies seem to see performance reporting as a "no cost" alternative to performance funding and budgeting. The responses of some SHEFOs suggest that some policy makers may view performance reporting as an informal form of performance budgeting. Only a limited number of states are revising their reports to link them with the report cards in the "Measuring Up 2002" document. State governments are making only modest use of performance reports in planning and policymaking, and the same may be said of educational system boards. Only time will tell whether performance reporting represents "real" accountability that sets goals and seeks results or accountability "lite" that looks good, but is less fulfilling. Three appendixes contain the survey and data tables. (Contains 17 tables and 12 references.) (SLD)