The recent commentary by TJ Meadows responding to Amelia Knisely’s reporting presents an incomplete and misleading picture of the state’s actions following the tragic death of Kyneddi Miller. While the article raises serious questions, it overlooks the central fact: the state did not abandon reform efforts. It replaced a limited, ineffective approach with a stronger, more comprehensive one.
1. This Was Not Abandonment — It Was an Upgrade
After Miller’s death, the prior administration entered into a contract with Evident Change to support improvements at the intake level of Child Protective Services. That tool was designed primarily to assist with initial screening decisions. However, it was never fully implemented, and upon further evaluation, the Department of Human Services determined it would not provide the systemic improvements needed. The model lacked measurable outcomes and was limited in scope, focusing only on intake rather than the full lifecycle of a case.
Rather than continue investing in a partial solution, the Department made the decision to transition to the SAFE (Safety Assessment and Family Evaluation) model developed by Action for Child Protection. This structured, research-informed framework guides decision-making from intake through ongoing casework. It allows for a more holistic approach to child safety, improves consistency across the system, and provides clearer guidance for caseworkers at every stage. This reflects a deliberate effort to strengthen the entire safety practice model, not simply replace one tool with another.
2. Centralized Intake Remains — With Improved Decision-Making
It is important to clarify that Centralized Intake remains fully operational as the front door for all abuse and neglect reports. The system continues to assess each case and determine the appropriate response, including identifying situations where families can be better served through prevention and support services rather than a full CPS intervention.
What has changed is how decisions are made. Instead of relying on a standalone intake tool, the SAFE model provides a broader framework that improves consistency and accuracy from the first report through the life of the case. The goal remains the same: ensure children who are unsafe receive immediate attention while connecting families to the right level of support when there is no immediate safety threat.
3. Responsible Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars
From a fiscal standpoint, the Department acted responsibly. Of the approximately $560,000 total contract value with Evident Change, the state paid $223,000 for services rendered, including training and materials. Once it became clear the model would not meet the state’s needs, the contract was terminated, all outstanding payments were fulfilled, and the state avoided spending hundreds of thousands of additional dollars on an incomplete product.
This represents prudent stewardship of taxpayer resources and a willingness to make course corrections when warranted.
4. The Focus Should Be on Outcomes — Not Process
The central flaw in the criticism is its focus on process rather than outcomes. The cancellation of a contract is presented as evidence of inaction, when in reality it reflects a course correction based on evaluation and evidence.
The SAFE model is already being implemented, with its intake components in place and additional elements continuing to roll out. Early feedback from practitioners within the system, including members of the judiciary, has been positive. These developments point to progress, even if they are not reflected in the narrative presented.
5. Accountability Means Making Better Decisions
It is fair to expect transparency and accountability in government. But accountability also requires recognizing when a plan is insufficient and taking steps to improve it.
The Department evaluated the limitations of the Evident Change model and chose a more comprehensive alternative. That decision reflects responsible leadership focused on long-term outcomes rather than short-term optics.
The bottom line is clear. The state did not walk away from reform. It made a strategic decision to pursue a more effective path forward — one that strengthens child safety assessments, improves consistency, and better serves vulnerable families across West Virginia.
