Eventually, Iris is defined as a person who is unwilling, uncooperative, and unable to formulate what she ‘really’ wants in a consistent way. In these respects, she is all that Martin is not. Her case becomes a recurring subject
at staff meetings, and the staff feel that a decision about what to do with her is becoming increasingly urgent. One day, Iris’s key worker opens up the discussion at a meeting with: “As you all know, Iris is drinking”. Another participant accepts the challenge by introducing the issue of responsibility: “Are we capable of taking responsibility for Iris?” The problem is that Iris is not motivated to take Antabuse, and even on those occasions where staff actually succeed in making her take it, it does not prevent her from drinking. This situation is highly undesirable, because drinking while taking Antabuse is a health hazard, somebody warns. A third person suggests: “Should we refer Iris to a treatment institution?” Participants doubt if it is worth the effort, because Iris will probably run away anyway. “We can’t throw her out onto the streets, can we?” somebody asks, without getting an answer. Then follows the what-is-best-for-the-client-argument, similar to the one discussed in Simon’s case: “Maybe Iris will be better off at an institution that can exercise more unconditional care and less strict rules than we have here. At such a place she will be freer to come and go as she pleases”.
For the staff none of these suggestions seems to be just right. On the one hand, they cannot let Iris stay unless she changes her behaviour and attitude towards Antabuse, which is obviously considered unlikely, and, on the other hand, there does not seem to be a promising alternative. This dilemma reflects the inconsistency between local policies promoting a target group confined to people who want to stop their problematic drug use, and central policies promoting a broader target group of, in principle, all the homeless. Moreover, the dilemma involves the issue of responsibility of staff: will they be failing if they let Iris stay even though they cannot offer her what she needs? Or, on the other hand, will they be failing if they force her to leave? This resembles the discussion about Simon before he was diagnosed, but it seems easier for the staff to agree that Iris has to move out, and, in my opinion, this is because she has no prospect of getting a diagnosis.
The dilemma of what to do with Iris is solved for now with the decision that she should be offered a place at a treatment institution for alcoholics. If she does not accept, she will be thrown out. In a last-minute remark, though, this is moderated: first, Iris’ key worker will have a talk with her. Still, staff think they cannot just throw Iris out without referring her to an alternative agency – for which reason the suggestion to discharge her onto the street will
probably not be taken too seriously, leaving only two possible outcomes: a treatment institution, or another hostel with a more tolerant profile in line with harm reduction.
The staff end up with the solution that has the most intervening character (a treatment institution), even though this is the solution they doubt the most. As in Simon’s case, Iris is referred to another institution. It is com- mon practice at hostels for the homeless to refer people elsewhere if they are deemed not to benefit from the services provided, or if they are regarded as being in the wrong kind of institution for any other reason. According to Lipsky, referrals serve the client’s interest when their needs have been well identified, and resources are available at the receiving agency (1980: 132). This seems to be the case for Simon, whereas Iris’ situation is more blurred, and it appears that in her case, getting rid of a resident who does not fit the institutional setting carries more weight than providing the best help. In extension of this point, the suggestion to refer Iris may be viewed as an attempt to renounce responsibility and the risk of blame it involves. Part of this rationality is also disclosed in the proposal to give Iris a choice. Choice is commonly thought of as an exercise of freedom, but this is hardly the case here since Iris’ field of possibilities is very limited: either she submits to a treatment institution or to another hostel, or to the good will of accidental acquaintances to spend the night. So, when staff use arguments regarding residents’ ‘own responsibility’ and ‘choice’, this may sometimes be seen as an endeavour to escape a problematic situation in a legitimate way, rather than as a sign of respect for residents’ self-determination.
Using Sahlins’ model, Iris is more ‘an enemy’ than ‘a friend’ in that there are not many excuses for her behaviour in an institutional setting influenced by zero tolerance: she is not equipped with either a diagnosis (like Simon) or resources (like Martin). However, she is not as bad as a drug dealer, and actu- ally staff seem to like her. But sympathy alone is not enough to let residents stay – it is more important that they behave in a fairly consistent manner that can convince staff about their honest will to change in directions staff define as ‘right’. Martin is able to do this; Iris is not.
But the meeting does not settle the matter of Iris completely, which could be because staff after all feel uneasy about the direction the decision process
is moving in. This is implied by a softening up at the end of the discussion with the remark that Iris will not be thrown out before she has had a con- versation with her key worker. In this way, the possibility that Iris could be given another chance still exists. As in many other cases, the dilemma between individual treatment and rule rigidity is only partly and tentatively solved.