Amanda, a department staff member presenting at the Greene County meeting on Nov. 10, said the county currently serves 129 people with meals prepared by its central kitchen, 12 on an alternate ("mom's meals") plan and one person on a senior-projects contract — roughly 142 homebound clients in total. "Currently, we have a 129 that are receiving meals that are prepared by our central kitchen on homebound meals," Amanda said during the update.

The department described a complex patchwork of volunteer routes and township arrangements that has made coverage inconsistent, especially on long "mountaintop" routes. Staff said volunteers have resigned and compliance requirements (background checks, mandatory trainings) mean returning volunteers often must restart onboarding. The presenter said the office has dispatching administrative staff to deliver meals on at least six occasions in the last two weeks when volunteers failed to complete routes.

Board members asked whether powered coolers (plug-in temperature devices) or larger insulated containers could replace the practice of using ice bricks; staff cautioned coolers are heavy or bulky and many volunteers, some older themselves, are unable to carry the additional weight, while the current bags with bricks remain the practical solution.

Options discussed included: (1) reinstating a volunteer-coordinator role or following Greenville’s model where a township coordinator vets and schedules volunteers; (2) recruiting and rehiring former volunteers (the county’s volunteer roster once numbered about 180); (3) hiring per-diem or part-time drivers dedicated to difficult routes such as the mountaintop; and (4) contracting a third-party nonprofit delivery service (identified in the meeting as "Care For You") that would pick up hot meals from county centers and deliver for a fee. Staff said the vendor model quoted roughly $3.40 per meal plus mileage but noted mileage reimbursement details and multiple stop logistics affect final cost.

The department also noted it lost RSVP (Retired Senior Volunteer Program) funding on April 1, which complicated replacing the previous volunteer coordinator and contributed to volunteer program instability. "We lost that program funding back on April 1," Amanda told the board, saying some volunteer functions were transferred successfully to Catholic Charities but many senior-center and meal-route volunteers were not.

Board members directed staff to continue recruitment and to advertise vacancies through normal HR channels, to re-contact former volunteers, and to pursue short-term per-diem hiring if volunteer outreach fails to produce sufficient coverage. The board indicated it would consider a budget amendment or contract option in a future session if recruitment and re-onboarding efforts do not restore consistent service.

Ending: The board left the department to continue outreach and bring back a recommended path (recruitment timeline, funding implications or a contracting proposal) for follow-up; staff estimated a realistic recruitment window of several weeks to months and said a fuller plan should be ready after the new year.