Heading Home CEO keeps job after online statements

Feb 2, 2023

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – After making a comment on Instagram that people shouldn’t give directly to the homeless, the head of Heading Home – a homeless shelter that does a lot of work with the city – is in a bit of hot water. Heading Home CEO Steve Decker posted ‘trying to help with handouts makes the problem worse’… Thursday morning during a board meeting. Later, he tried to clear things up.

“I have been torn up inside about this lack of communication on my part because I am not as eloquent as others and I feel like my message went sideways,” said Decker. The social media post on the nonprofit’s Instagram page, which has since been deleted, showed Decker’s statement calling out people who want to help.

Decker says until living on the streets becomes uncomfortable by preventing handouts such as cash, food, water, and clothing, the homeless won’t seek out services. “I think we have an obligation to start getting really serious about changing everything in the system that is broken that creates the cycle of inability to succeed,” added Decker.

Advocates for the homeless, and some of his Heading Home employees, say Decker’s statements do not align with the organization’s mission. “We don’t want to make people so uncomfortable [that] they are sleeping on the ground. I think we can understand it’s not a comfortable lifestyle,” said New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness Executive Director Monet Silva.

Others also expressed their astonishment. “Mr. Decker’s statements have seriously jeopardized the reputation of Heading Home, not only with other providers but with the un-housed themselves,” added homeless advocate Sarah Malone.

Heading Home employee Shannon Dow also expressed her disbelief. “I can no longer be proud to say I work for Heading Home as long as this is the example set by our leadership. In fact, I am embarrassed to say it,” Dow said.

After receiving a blast of scrutiny for his words, Decker issued his apology. “The reality is that I screwed up, pure and simple. I said words that I have never should have said. I apologize to the staff that does this work and is the difference in the daily lives of hundreds upon hundreds of people.” added Decker.

There are calls for Decker to step down, but after today’s meeting, the board said they accepted his apology and Decker will be keeping his job.

Heading Home recently got a contract to run the shelter at the City of Albuquerque’s Gateway Center.

I read the article in full and I think this is a super important conversation to have and it doesn’t get the focus I think it should.

Within the homeless advocacy community there are two camps, two worldviews and they are not easily reconcilable.

One view takes the position that has been described as “calculated misery”. This viewpoint argues that the homeless won’t change until they have, by some metric, hit “rock bottom”. People who adopt this POV are, like the person in the OP, opposed to direct handouts, opposed to guaranteed income, opposed to flying signs, opposed to anything that makes the day-to-day life of the homeless easier because they think it solves a short-term need yet enables and exacerbates a long-term problem. People like Decker think that people really need to suffer before they are going to change and that too many people offer a hand out when they should offer a hand up.

The other camp views “calculated misery” as a polite way to justify being cruel and through the phenomenon psychologists call “learned helplessness” actually makes the homeless problem worse. I call this group the “kindness brigade” and they see the other group’s resistance to direct payments, cash handouts, and behaviors that improve the day-to-day life of the homeless as the “shelter industry” protecting its turf and frankly, at times, inserting themselves in the middle as a greedy money grab. They think that the best way to solve the homeless problem is through hand outs and hand ups and they don’t see any important difference between a hand out and a hand up; they think that one necessarily proceeds the other.

As I said, these two views are not easily reconcilable. One sees treating the homeless nicely as making the homeless problem worse, the other thinks that failing to treat the homeless nicely makes the homeless problem worse.