Page:LewisMeriam-TheProblemOfIndianAdministration.djvu/205

nomical; it results in far more accurate records and reports. The field worker is naturally going to take far more interest in maintaining his own records if he knows that these records will be reviewed by the superintendent and by specialists from the Washington office and will be analyzed and worked up by the statistician and his assistants, and will eventually be made available to him for study in their final statistical form. If he has a tendency to slight them and to omit essential facts, he is brought to book by the demands of the other officers.

The need for better records made currently by field workers in direct contact with the Indians can hardly be over-emphasized. These are the people, often the only people, who can get original, first-hand information. Upon their records and reports reliance must be placed for the facts to be used in making decisions in individual cases and to be compiled into statistics to serve as the basis for reviewing activities, measuring progress, and formulating policies. These workers need these records themselves to aid them in the conduct of their own work. Such records are especially important when field workers change, as is often the case in the Indian Service, for without carefully secured records the new worker has to begin all over again to get the basic information and may be almost entirely without knowledge of what has been done in the past. These records are perhaps of even greater importance when two or more field workers come in contact with the same family, for unless they are informed as to the activities of their co-workers they may follow inconsistent courses.

Speaking broadly, one may say that the records that relate to the Indian himself and his activities as distinct from his property are at present entirely lacking or at best inadequate. Physicians, field nurses, matrons and farmers are to be found who depend very largely upon their recollection in guiding their own work and in making reports to their superintendents. Often the reports made are so vague and general that no supervisory reviewing officer could draw any valid conclusions from them and must in consequence depend very largely upon his evaluation of the field worker’s memory and judgment. They furnish little basis for directing the field worker’s activities and making concrete suggestions for improving and developing his work.