Elements of the program s structure, however, raise a number of policy considerations and concerns. Some states have indicated that they may choose not to participate in the program because of an inability or unwillingness to spend state funds to meet the matching fund requirement. Local and private expenditures will be allowed as some or all of a state match. This option, however, may encourage states that would otherwise provide the matching funds to shift the obligation to local communities. Although states can apply for a waiver to give an alternate agency the authority to administer the funds for a particular area, the burden of generating several individual waivers may discourage states from designating alternate agencies and may prompt states to be even more reluctant to provide matching funds.
Governors do, however, have some leverage over PICs.
Furthermore, the 15 percent of WtW funds retained by Governors could be used as an incentive to influence the way PICs use their portion of the funds. Some observers have also questioned whether PICs are the most appropriate entity to administer the grant program. Critics argue that PICs have not traditionally served the population targeted by the grant program. Competitive grant funds may be used to support a range of innovative programs and services. Applicants for funds must, however, develop proposals within a very tight time frame, which may limit the number of proposals submitted.