Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25, § 6060 – Evaluation of Relocation.

(a) A public entity is encouraged to evaluate its relocation program, assessing the quality and quantity of services provided as well as displacee satisfaction, to determine the adequacy of program planning and to ascertain whether any persons have been denied the full benefits and services to which they are entitled. The evaluation should be based upon an annual or continual inspection of files and records, case interviews, and inspection of replacement housing and business and farm replacement locations and discussions with local individuals or organizations familiar with relocation issues. A written evaluation should be prepared at least annually.
(b) The files and records of displaced persons and property owners should be selected at random. The review should include any cases that were identified by previous monitoring as requiring corrective action and should assess the public entity's progress in taking corrective action. Both relocation and acquisition activities should be covered by the review.
1. (1) The relocation sample should include cases in which all payments have been completed and cases in which the person has been displaced but all payments have not yet been made. The sample should provide a basis for the reviewer to determine not only whether payments were computed properly and made promptly, but also whether displaced persons received proper notice of the full range of relocation assistance and services to which they are entitled. Priority attention should be given to cases in which a grievance has been filed or the agency has determined that a person is ineligible for relocation benefits.
2. (2) The acquisition sample should be based on cases in which settlement has been completed. However, if necessary to provide a representative sample of acquisition activities, the reviewer should include incomplete transactions in which negotiations have been initiated.
(c) After the records and files have been reviewed, the reviewer should select cases for further evaluation through personal interviews with displaced persons and/or owners and the inspection of housing to which persons have moved. The interviews and housing inspections should serve both to spot check the accuracy of the information obtained in the examination of the records and files and give the reviewer a better perspective on the agency's performance.
The number and type of cases for which interviews and housing inspections are to be carried out should reflect the reviewer's judgment based on the information he has just reviewed. Generally, an interview and inspection should be carried out for at least one of every five cases for which the files and records have been reviewed. Only where the number of persons displaced is less than 25 should the number of interviews and inspections be less than 10. In no case should the number of interviews and inspections be lower than the lesser of five and the number of persons displaced. To the extent possible, the interviews should cover a representative cross section of the types of cases in the agency's workload: e.g., relocation cases involving families of various sizes as well as individuals and business concerns (including both owners and tenants), and acquisition transactions involving residential, commercial and industrial properties.
(d) In addition to the above, the following factors are among those which should be considered:
1. (1) The effectiveness of efforts to provide relocation services to displaced persons, including timeliness of notice and correctness of eligibility determinations.
2. (2) The satisfaction of relocated families, individuals and business concerns in their new locations.
3. (3) The extent to which self-moves to substandard housing have been minimized.
4. (4) The effectiveness of efforts to provide relocation services to business concerns, including counseling services and SBA loans to aid in their reestablishment.
5. (5) The promptness of processing claims and the making of payments, including the amounts, delivery, and use of relocation payments.
6. (6) The number and magnitude of rent increases following acquisition and displacement.
7. (7) The effectiveness of methods used to resolve difficulties experienced by site occupants.
8. (8) The effectiveness of the public entity's grievance procedures.
9. (9) The extent of resident involvement in planning the relocation program.
10. (10) The effectiveness in assuring equal opportunity for displaced persons and in reducing patterns of minority-group concentration.
11. (11) The effectiveness of relocation in upgrading the housing and overall environmental conditions of persons displaced.
12. (12) The effectiveness of the social service program, including counseling services, in helping residents adjust to relocation and in helping solve individual and family problems.
13. (13) The impact on those segments of the housing market serving the income groups displaced.