Assessment. In addition to the Damr, the Grand Jury was given a loose, single-page line graph showing a decline in the

Regarding the evaluation and assessment for accountability to the public  The one-time-only redesign presents a vivid, revealing and un-retouched candid snapshot of CFS, which stands in contrast to the usual documentation CFS presents. Its pattern of identifying strengths and recommending opportunities for change in 13 elements implies a measure of accountability.  CFS has an obligation to measure its accountability to the public and express it in terms which can be understood by the public.  Normally CFS publications include: o CFS’ brief contribution to the Human Services Annual Report, which is a public document; o the bound Annual Report, which contains little in the way of accountability, and the intended audience is CFS, not the public; o documents such as the DAMR provide some insight into CFS operations, which are not available to the public; and o the Self-Reassessment, based on the SIP results (formerly published after three years, now extended to five years), is clearly intended for a professional audience, not the public.  Two annual goals are cited in the CFS Report incorporated in the Human Services Annual Report and other publications, yet the Grand Jury was unable to readily find the outcomes for these goals reported in either CFS public documents or on the CFS website. They are cited in the Human Services Department annual budget.  CFS’ current method of reporting evaluation of its effectiveness and accountability to the public is inadequate. It is too dependent on the outcomes of the periodic SIP goals and the unreported outcomes of annual internal goals. This makes it difficult for the public to be able to determine if CFS is operating effectively within its budget. 51