Tier 3 · À-la-carte extension
Difference-in-Differences on Prior Policy Interventions
Quasi-experimental analysis. Did a TIF, CRA, or overlay-zone designation actually move its target outcome? Or were trends going to play out the same way anyway?
TIF Effective · year-relative-to-treatment
DiD estimate: +27.0 pp
95% CI: [18.4, 35.6] · p = 0.003 · Placebo test: passed
Outcome: % increase in commercial assessed value (treated minus control)
Effective
South St. Pete CRA designation produced a measurable, robust effect.
Synthetic-control + DiD analysis of the South St. Pete CRA designation shows a statistically significant uplift in commercial assessed value relative to comparable un-treated tracts. Effect emerges 3 years post-treatment, robust to placebo tests, robust to alternative comparator selection.
Strong, robust positive effect: +27 points in commercial assessed value over 5 years post-treatment (95% CI: 18.4–35.6, p<0.01).
Policy recommendation
Renew CRA authority. Document mechanism (anchor-led redevelopment) and consider replication in candidate tracts. Treat South St. Pete CRA as the proof case for cluster-overlay-district policy.
Illustrative dummy data
All figures shown are illustrative and chosen to demonstrate three meaningfully different findings. Final analysis at engagement award is derived from authoritative sources (BLS, ACS, Florida DEO, IMPLAN, CoStar) with full methodology documentation.
Back to all method demos