Two decades following the publication of David G. Brown's "Criteria for Pruning Programs," (which recognized that traditional financial support to higher education was decreasing and proposed 10 guidelines for evaluating existing programs) a study was developed to determine what criteria are actually being used by comprehensive universities and state coordinating boards to determine which programs to reduce or eliminate. The study looks at the manner in which academic administrators perceive the relative value of each criterion in an ideal evaluation system, recognizing that this might differ a bit from what is happening in practice. A questionnaire was developed that operationalized Brown's guidelines for evaluating programs for possible reduction. The original criteria were modified to include centrality, critical mass, complementariness, program vitality, substitutability or duplication, cost benefit analysis, quality, demand, and uniqueness. Surveys were distributed to the vice chancellors for academic affairs of the 50 state higher education boards that are members of the State Higher Education Executive Officers, and 76 were distributed to public universities represented in the 50 states. It is concluded that the criteria suggested by Brown are still relevant today. The findings verify that Brown's nine modified criteria are the key factors used at both research university and state coordinating board levels for decisions resulting in program reduction or elimination. Tables are included along with a copy of the questionnaire and a listing of the institutions. (SM)