Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Youth Connection says $11.2 million local investment at risk as county review continues
Summary
Susan Kerchoff, executive director of Youth Connection, told Mason County commissioners the nonprofit is completing an $11.2 million investment that will add 12 transitional housing units and a youth center, and she questioned the county's monitoring process and the decision to end the organization's contract.
Susan Kerchoff, executive director and founder of the Youth Connection, told the Mason County Board of Commissioners on July 21 that the nonprofit is nearing completion of an $11,200,000 investment in the county that will add 12 transitional housing units and create a youth-focused community center.
Kerchoff said the investment uses federal, state and local dollars and is intended to support young people who “call Mason County home,” noting that more than 70% of Youth Connection participants come from foster care or other systems of care. She described the remodel and program space as designed to prevent youth homelessness and provide “opportunities for success.”
Kerchoff also raised concerns about the county’s monitoring process. She said it took “approximately 2.5 years” for Mason County to complete due diligence and monitoring of the Youth Connection and argued that earlier oversight could have identified issues sooner and helped preserve the county–provider partnership. “That leaves me asking an important question, not about blame, but about accountability,” she told the commissioners.
Kerchoff said the Youth Connection has acknowledged shortcomings and undertaken improvements but questioned how ending the county contract would serve Mason County’s five‑year homelessness plan, which specifically calls for action on youth homelessness. She emphasized the organization’s continued commitment to serving youth “regardless of contracts or funding.”
The commissioners did not take a separate vote on the Youth Connection in the meeting’s public-comment segment. County staff and commissioners did not offer a direct response to Kerchoff’s request during the hearing; the board proceeded to routine agenda business. The county’s final decisions on contracting or monitoring procedures were not resolved at the session.
Next steps: Kerchoff’s remarks were made during the public-comment period; any future action on the Youth Connection contract would require follow-up by county staff or an agenda item scheduled for a future meeting.
