generated by social fund process is not kept aflame with opportunities and funding for further development initiatives, it is likely to turn very quickly to disillusionment. JSIF, like most Social Funds, is financially constrained and potentially unlikely to have the resources to permit a community to apply for a second project. Unless this is rectified, the CDD process may have the potential to result in a level of disillusionment that is perhaps even greater than in regular top-down projects because of the level of hope that CDD engineers within activist groups in a community.

We now turn to perceptions of how the process of decision mraking within the community has changed, and the effectiveness of leadership and governance. Table 12 asks if respondents believe that community leaders are more responsive to their needs. Since the qualitative data revealed that the CDD process was often driven by local leaders - both formal and informal - this question checks to see if their efforts have resulted in a perception of greater responsiveness. The data show no JSIF effect either in the cross-tabs or the nearest neighbor estimates. The nearest neighbor estimates show, however, that JSIF effect is stronger for younger individuals, those who are married and those who are better networked outside the community. Therefore, while JSIF does not seem to have increased overall perceptions of community leader effectiveness, it was more likely to have done so with younger, married and better networked individuals.

Table 13 provides an interesting contrast - examining whether community decisions are now more likely to be made by community leaders. Here we see a positive JSIF effect both in the cross-tabs and the propensity score nearest neighbor estimates. The nearest neighbor results also reveal that less educated and older individuals are more likely to report that decisions are made more by community leaders. Also notice that non-JSIF communities have also seen an increase in the role of the community leader, suggesting that there is a decentralization process at work in Jamaica that seems to be affecting communities regardless of their contact with JSIF. Tables 12 and 13 together indicate that the power of community leaders has increased in all communities, but particularly so in JSIF communities. However, this increased power is not perceived by the community to have increased the community leader's responsiveness and effectiveness. They do not seem to be getting credit for JSIF initiatives despite the fact that they are so strongly driven by community leaders.

Table 14 focuses on changes in the role of the community in making decisions - on issues of "voice" by reporting results on changes in decisions made by community vote. The variable does not show a JSIF impact - there is no discernable difference between JSIF and non-JSIF communities on community decisions with vote. However, perceptions of improvements in democratic decision making are more likely to have been reported by younger individuals. Respondents with access to important people within the community are also more likely to perceive an improvement, again indicating that better networked people are more likely to have been consulted about community decisions in this process. Note again, that both 33