Caitlin Harrigan, a human‑services staff member, presented a draft human‑services needs assessment to the Monroe City Council on Sept. 16, saying the study updates the 2021 assessment and will guide human‑services priorities and funding for the next four years.
The assessment surveyed residents from June 6 to July 27 and collected 289 responses, Harrigan said, and combined that primary data with key‑informant interviews, six focus groups and secondary data from county and state sources. "This assessment updates the 2021 needs assessment that sets the focus for the next 4 years for human services priorities," she said.
Harrigan told the council the report covers the Sky Valley area—Monroe, Sultan, Gold Bar and Index and surrounding ZIP code areas including unincorporated Snohomish County—and finds recurring gaps in affordable housing, behavioral and mental‑health services, transportation and child care. The report showed about 7% of the Sky Valley population lives below the federal poverty level, with higher rates among some groups; Monroe’s median listing price in July 2025 was reported at more than $880,000 and the presenter said roughly 37% of survey respondents reported spending 30–50% of income on housing.
The assessment described local shelter capacity as limited: two day‑to‑day shelters in Monroe (Monroe Gospel Women’s Mission with 16 beds, Cocoon House with 8 beds) and a seasonal cold‑weather shelter with 15–20 units. Harrigan said the city’s comprehensive‑plan update estimates about 137 emergency housing units are needed within the city of Monroe alone.
On workforce and opportunity, the survey found only 32% of respondents agreed there is economic opportunity in Sky Valley; more than 20% of respondents reported paychecks that did not cover basic living expenses. Education and youth indicators showed lower higher‑education attainment than county or state levels and higher rates of students below grade level among English‑language learners, low‑income students, unhoused students and students with disabilities, Harrigan said.
Behavioral‑health and substance‑use metrics also drew attention. Harrigan cited CDC and local surveys showing elevated rates of mental distress, depression and social isolation compared with national averages. In 2025 county emergency‑department data showed 222 opioid‑related overdoses countywide in a quarter, the presenter said, and the report lists local priorities including prevention and inpatient‑care gaps for underinsured patients.
Harrigan summarized key qualitative findings from focus groups: language and access barriers reported by Hispanic and Latino community members, long wait times for specialty care and autism diagnosis, transportation barriers (more than half of residents commute at least 30 minutes to work), and child‑care shortages (24 Department of Children, Youth and Families‑licensed facilities in Sky Valley, including two Head Start/ECAP programs). She said 18% of survey respondents overall said they needed childcare and had difficulty finding it; 84% of those cited cost as the barrier.
The presentation closed with a ranked needs matrix and recommendations the report lists as top needs for Sky Valley: affordable housing, behavioral‑health and substance‑use disorder services, transportation and traffic safety, food and nutrition support, affordable child care, health and dental access, and employment and education supports. Harrigan told council the recommendations align with prior HPAC guidance and the Monroe comprehensive plan.
Council members thanked Harrigan for the ‘‘very thorough’’ draft and asked about methodology and outreach. Council member Walker asked how youth focus groups were recruited during summer; Harrigan said staff reached out at community events and through area service providers and that youth volunteers from a kids’ club joined, noting the youth focus group included roughly five or six participants ages roughly 11–17. Council members asked for any additional outreach or follow‑up data the council might prefer during the revision process.
The presenter and staff characterized the report as a draft and asked the council for direction about items to refine; no formal council action was taken at the meeting.
The draft report and its appendices remain the basis for future funding and policy discussions, and city staff said they would bring back any follow‑up data or edits requested by council in subsequent meetings.