Any specific recommendation by the Commission as to the retention or closing of particular shops in the present set-up would have to be made on the basis of work programs and operations at the time of the study.

The maximum benefits of the recommended area concept, however, can be realized only with careful consideration for anticipated expansion of highway building and the likely changes of emphasis in such programming. For this reason, and in consideration of the many complexities involved in achieving the most effective concentration of maintenance and repair facilities, the Commission believes discretion as to the location of "area" shops should be left with the Department.

Another major advantage of the area concept for distribution, maintenance and repair of equipment would be increased efficiency of remaining shops. This would be achieved through better work scheduling, maximum utilization of shop facilities and equipment, specialization of repair personnel, elimination of duplications in inventory, a greater inventory flexibility, and reduction of fixed supervisor and clerical costs.

The Commission also recommends that the specific types of repairs to be performed at the area shop, as against minor repairs to be left with the residency shops, be clearly defined.

Also proposed by the Commission is the granting of authority to purchase minor repair parts within the residency, which would eliminate long-distance travel or delays in obtaining such parts and greatly reduce repair time on equipment.

Potential Savings

The Commission's recommendations in the field of equipment utilization could, as pre

viously stated, mean eventual savings of approximately $7 million through elimination of the need for future replacement of much of the Department's equipment inventory.

This estimate of potential savings, at current replacement costs, is based upon a utilization analysis of all work orders for a 12-months period in 1959-60, covering approximately 150 different items of equipment. The data thus compiled from headquarters records in Albany was verified by a check against records in the individual districts. The results are shown in Table L.

The Commission's major recommendation in the area of distribution and repair of equipment, proposing reduction to five of the present ten district maintenance and repair shops, could mean an eventual savings of $4,053,046.

Of this amount, $1,457,899 would be a reduction of operating expense indicated by a sample concentration of facilities considered by the Commission for study purposes. The study indicated further that almost any combination of five existing shops could mean approximately the same savings.

The same is true of the Commission's estimate of $2,595,147 in possible savings through the freeing of capital assets. The sample combination of shops analyzed by the Commission showed possible savings of $270,486 in machinery and tools, $514,857 in parts inventory, and a conservatively figured $1,809,804 through the freeing, for other uses, of buildings with that total of original building cost.

The possible savings in machinery, tools and parts would be realized as the consolidation of shops progresses. The savings on buildings, however, would eventuate as and when they are disposed of or uses are found for them, thus eliminating the need for new facilities.

For a number of years, segments of the public, the press and the Legislature have expressed growing dissatisfaction with the administration of public welfare in this State. This dissatisfaction has been concerned primarily with the public assistance programs, including Home Relief (HR), Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), Old Age Assistance (OAA), Aid to the Disabled (AD) and medical care for the indigent.

The Temporary State Commission on Coordination of State Activities, which has broad powers sufficient to undertake this type of survey, was given specific authority to do so by chapter 1006 of the Laws of New York, 1960. To initiate its investigation, the Commission took two principal actions, as follows:

1. In May of 1960, the management consultant firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget of New York City was retained to make a professional reconnaissance study of social welfare operations in New York State. This work was done as part of the overall survey under the immediate charge of a special Commission Subcommittee on Public Welfare. The Cresap firm submitted its two-volume report to the Commission on January 18, 1961. Because of public interest and the comprehensiveness and detail of the report, the Commission promptly released it to the press without taking action on it at that time.

2. After employment of the Cresap firm, the Commission Chairman, Senator Austin W. Erwin (R-Geneseo), pursuant to authority given him by the Commission, designated four of its members as the special Subcommittee on Public Welfare mentioned above. These members were Senator Henry A. Wisc (R.-Watertown), named as Chairman; Assemblyman

Joseph R. Corso (D.-Brooklyn); Assemblyman A. Bruce Manley (R.-Fredonia); and Doctor William J. Ronan, Secretary to the Governor, who accepted designation with the understanding he could not participate in the Subcommittee's detail work.

constant liaison with the Cresap firm, compleThe Subcommittee, in addition to maintaining mented the professional study undertaken by that firm by special studies of its own.

From its Albany and New York City offices, the Subcommittee employed the following four major methods of developing findings and

recommendations:

A.-Collection and review of outstanding previous studies, reports, statistics and documentary material pertinent to the assignment;

sonal interviews with individuals and groups B.-Exploration of conflicting areas by perconcerned;

C.-Public hearings in key sections of the State; and

D.-Formation of a special Medical Advisory Committee to the Subcommittee, composed of experts in medical care, particularly as applied to public welfare.

Under Study Program A, the Subcommittee in general attempted to amass material covering the past decade, involving welfare operations not only on the State level, but on Federal and local levels as well. The material came from both public and private sources and was constantly updated to include documents of the most recent publication. In addition to the scores of official reports, special surveys and even grand jury presentments collected and studied, the Subcommittee also undertook to familiarize itself with policies and procedures

at the several levels of welfare operation, public and private. Such related material as magazine articles, books and special newspaper series on public welfare problems was assembled and studied.

Under Study Program B, legislative members of the Subcommittee and members of its staff personally interviewed hundreds of persons. Out-of-State consultations included meetings with staff members of the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (McClellan Committee), which at present is reviewing procedures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; conferences with the Chairman of a Committee of the New Jersey Legislature now studying public welfare operations in that state, and talks with the Chairman of a Committee of the California Legislature studying ADC in that state. Interviews on an official level in New York included conferences with personnel of the State Department of Social Welfare and various members of its Board; with representatives of local departments of public welfare in all sections of the State; and with representatives of major private welfare agencies and civic organizations concerned. In addition, scores of private individuals who wrote in to volunteer information were interviewed personally by Subcommittee staff members. Many other private individuals were queried by mail, including more than 150 former social investigators in the New York City and Buffalo areas. As part of their studies, the legislative members of the Subcommittee visited in person a cross section of welfare recipients in a section of New York City inhabited almost entirely by public assist

ance cases.

Under Study Program C, the legislative members of the Subcommittee held public hearings in three key areas of the State. These hearings in 1960 were convened in Syracuse on October 19 and 20; in New York City on November 14, 16, 17 and 18; and in Buffalo on December 20, 21 and 22. Witnesses questioned by the Sub

committee included public officials, executives of public and private welfare organizations, representatives of civic groups and individual witnesses. A total of 20 witnesses from Central New York were heard at Syracuse; 58 from the Metropolitan Area at New York City; and 39 from Western New York at Buffalo. Official stenographers transcribed a total of 1,570 pages of testimony taken at the hearings.

Under Study Program D, the Subcommittee formed a Medical Advisory Committee for the purpose of obtaining a professional set of opinions and recommendations in that specialized area of welfare operations. Members of the Medical Advisory Committee were Dr. Robert P. Whalen, of Albany, as Chairman; Dr. George James, of New York City; and Dr. James Greenough, of Oneonta. Dr. Whalen is former Albany County Commissioner of Public Welfare and presently is Commissioner of Public Health of that county. Dr. James is First Deputy Health Commissioner of New York City. Dr. Greenough, a veteran private practitioner, was selected as a representative of the Medical Society of the State of New York. In its special studies, the Medical Advisory Committee and a staff of seven outstanding professional consultants, themselves all doctors and experts in various fields of public medicine, held extensive conferences with numerous medical and dental practitioners, hospital administrators and others at meetings in Albany and New York City. A report of findings and recommendations was submitted to the Subcommittee by the Medical Advisory Committee on January 22, 1961, and copies subsequently were distributed to each member of the Commission.

Altogether, the Commission has received the formal, two-volume report of the firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget; the informal, individual expressions of Subcommittee members; the minutes of three extended public hearings; and the report of the Medical Advisory Committee.