The authors contribute to the development of empirical methods for measuring the impacts of place-based local development strategies by introducing the adjusted interrupted time-series (AITS) approach. It estimates a more precise counterfactual scenario, thus offering a stronger basis for drawing causal inferences about impacts. The authors applied the AITS approach to three community development initiatives using single-family home prices as the outcome indicator and found that it could measure impacts on both the base level of prices and the rate of price appreciation. The authors also found a situation in which the method appears unreliable, however. The AITS approach benefits from more recurrent data on outcomes during the pre-and post-intervention periods, with an intertemporal pattern that avoids great volatility. The AITS approach to measuring effects of community development initiatives holds strong promise, with caveats.
Bartik, T. J.1992. The effects of state and local taxes on economic development: A review of recent research. Economic Development Quarterly6:102-110.
2.
Baum, H. S.2001. How should we evaluate community initiatives?Journal of the American Planning Association67:147-158.
3.
Blank, S.2000. Good works: Highlights of a study on the Center for Family Life. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
4.
Bloom, H. S.2003. Using “short” interrupted time-series analysis to measure the impacts of whole-school reforms. Evaluation Review27:3-49.
5.
Bloom, H. S. and B. Glispie.1999. The feasibility of using interrupted time-series analysis to measure jobs-plus impacts on employment and earnings: Preliminary findings for Cleveland and Dayton. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
6.
Bloom, H. S. and H. F. Ladd.1982. Property tax revaluation and tax levy growth. Journal of Urban Economics11:73-84.
7.
Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley.1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
8.
Can, A.1997. Spatial segmentation in urban house prices: Alternative approaches. Working Paper of the Policy, Research, Evaluation, and Training Division. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation.
9.
Can, A. and I. Megbolugbe.1997. Spatial dependence and house price index construction. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics14:203-222.
10.
Clapp, J., R. K. Pace, and M. Rodriguez.1998. Spatio-temporal estimation of neighborhood effects. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics17:15-33.
11.
Cook, T. D. and D. T. Campbell.1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
12.
Dowall, D. E., M. Beyeler, and C. S. Wong.1994. Evaluation of California’s Enterprise Zone and Employment and Economic Incentive programs. California Policy Research Center6.
13.
Ellen, I. G., M. H. Schill, S. Susin, and A. E. Schwartz.2001. Building homes, revitalizing neighborhoods: Spillovers from subsidized construction of owner-occupied housing in New York City. Journal of Housing Research12:185-216.
14.
Engberg, J. and R. Greenbaum.1999. State Enterprise Zones and local housing markets. Journal of Housing Research10:163-187.
15.
Erickson, R. A. and S. W. Friedman.1989. Enterprise Zones: An evaluation of state government policies. Final report prepared for Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. University Park: Center for Regional Business Analysis, Pennsylvania State University.
16.
Fulbright-Anderson, K., A. C. Kubisch, and J. P. Connell, eds. 1998. Theory, measurement, and analysis. Vol. 2: New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
17.
Galster, G., K. Pettit, P. Tatian, A. Santiago, and S. Newman.2000. The impacts of supportive housing on neighborhoods and neighbors. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18.
Galster, G., P. Tatian, and R. Smith.1999. The impact of neighbors who use section 8 certificates on property values. Housing Policy Debate10:879-917.
19.
Goodman, A.1978. Hedonic prices, price indices and housing markets. Journal of Urban Economics5:471-484.
20.
Greenbaum, R. and J. Engberg.2000. An evaluation of state Enterprise Zone policies. Policy Studies Review17:29-46.
21.
Grieson, R. E. and J. R. White.1989. The existence and capitalization of neighborhood externalities: A reassessment. Journal of Urban Economics25:68-76.
22.
Grogan, P. S. and T. Proscio.2000. Comeback cities. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23.
Halvorsen, R. and R. Palmquist.1980. The interpretation of dummy variables in semi logarithmic equations. American Economic Review70:474-475.
24.
Hollister, R. G. and J. Hill.1995. Problems in the evaluation of community-wide initiatives. In New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, edited by J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, and C. H. Weiss, 127-172. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
25.
Intriligator, M. D.1978. Econometric models, techniques, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
James, F. J.1991. The evaluation of Enterprise Zone programs. In Enterprise Zones: New directions in economic development, edited by R. E. Green, 225-240. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Johnson, J. and B. Bednarz.2002. Neighborhood effects of the low income housing tax credit program: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
28.
Morley, T.1998. Building better futures community report. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Foundation.
29.
Mueller, E.1995. The social effects of community development. New York: Community Development Research Center, Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School.
30.
Palmquist, R. B.1992. Valuing localized externalities. Journal of Urban Economics31:59-68.
31.
Polinsky, M. and S. Shavell.1976. Amenities and property values in a model of an urban area. Journal of Public Economics5:119-129.
32.
Proscio, T.2002. Structures of opportunity: Developing the Neighborhood Jobs Initiative in Fort Worth, Texas. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
33.
Rossi, P.1999. Evaluating community development interventions. In Urban problems and community development, edited by R. Ferguson and W. Dickens, 521-559, 565-567. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution.
34.
Schill, M. H., I. G. Ellen, A. E. Schwartz, and I. Voicu.2002. Revitalizing inner-city neighborhoods: New York City’s ten year plan. Housing Policy Debate13:529-566.
35.
Schwartz, A. E., I. G. Ellen, and I. Voicu. 2002. Estimating the external effects of subsidized housing investment on property values. Report presented at NBER Universities Research Conference, Cambridge, MA, December.
36.
Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell.2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
37.
Smith, B. C.2003. The impact of community development corporations on neighborhood housing markets: Modeling appreciation. Urban Affairs Review39 (2): 181-204.
38.
Sullivan, M. L.1990. Studying the effects of community development corporations on social control: An anthropological approach. New York: Community Development Research Center, Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School.
39.
Taub, R.1988. Community capitalism. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
40.
Taub, R.1990. Nuance and meaning in community development: Finding community and development. New York: Community Development Research Center, Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School.
41.
Taylor, D. G.2002. Measuring community change and its causes: Lessons from MCIC’s experience. Chicago: Metropolitan Chicago Information Center.
42.
Vidal, A.1992. Rebuilding communities: A national study of urban community development corporations. New York: Community Development Research Center, Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School.
43.
Vidal, A.1995. Reintegrating disadvantaged communities into the fabric of urban life: The role of community development. Housing Policy Debate6:169-229.
44.
Vidal, A., A. M. Howitt, and K. P. Foster.1986. Stimulating community development: An assessment of the local initiatives support corporation. Cambridge, MA: State, Local and Intergovernmental Center, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
45.
Walsh, J.1997. Stories of renewal: Community building and the future of urban America. New York: Rockefeller Foundation.
46.
Weiss, C. H.1972. Evaluation research: Methods of assessing program effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47.
Weiss, C. H.1998. Evaluation. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica48:817-838.
48.
Zielenbach, S.2003. Assessing economic change in HOPE VI neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate14 (4): 621-655.
