The concept of stigma is widely used and refers to a broad range of things (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015). In its most elementary version, stigma refers to the discrediting of people or groups due to certain attributes or characteristics. Stigmatised people or groups are considered “less than” others in society (Pescosolido et al., 2008, p. 431). Attributes that have been, and to varying degrees remain, stigmatising include mental health conditions, HIV, sexually transmitted infections, drug use, and sex work. Stigma involves affording a lower status to groups and individuals, associating them with negative stereotypes, and engaging in both direct and indirect discrimination. It is important to recognise that no attribute inherently serves as a basis for stigma. Stigma originates from societal perceptions of certain characteristics or attributes, leading to the formation of negative ideas surrounding them.

This language guide is based on analysis of language used by people from the UK. The research team committed to using naturally occurring everyday language and therefore created its data corpus from the language people use on Twitter (now ‘X’). Twitter was chosen purposefully as people generally have their real identities and/or social networks associated with their Twitter accounts. Compared to other internet platforms such as Reddit, it is not as anonymous and allowed the research to examine the language people were likely to use not only on the internet but also in public. Unlike a research interview where people tend to be more mindful of the language they use, messages posted on Twitter tend to have a very high degree of naturalism. The data generation phase of this work involved creating a corpus of messages users from the UK had posted about homelessness between 1st January 2019 and 31st December 2021. After removing repeated messages (retweets), replies, quotes, nonEnglish texts, and messages posted by suspected bots, the final corpus of everyday language on homelessness contained 4,505 messages posted by British citizens. Additionally, 916 sentences featuring phrases commonly used in the homelessness charity sector and newspapers were incorporated into the corpus. The dataset of 5,421 sentences was divided in sets of about 200 sentences each and were shared with 25 pairs of people with lived experience of homelessness who read each sentence and considered if people experiencing homelessness were described in a negative manner in the sentence. 943 sentences were rated as negative by both people in the pair forming the basis for the empirical research underpinning this language guide...

P.17 Substance abuse and addiction: Talking about people who experience homelessness in the context of intoxicating substances and drug use, or indeed using language that discusses addiction issues can create stigma. Stigmatisation is very direct when substance and drug use descriptors are used for people impacted by homelessness. For example, data show that people commonly tend to use descriptors such as “a crackhead homeless man” (117), “two homeless junkies” (118), “full on crackhead” (123), and “pissed homeless fellas” (121). Each of these stigmatising descriptors communicate a dispositional attribution that associates people experiencing homelessness with blame for their situation. At the same time, as message (126) shows, talking about drugs and substance abuse in relation with people experiencing homelessness can also involve indirect language. What is more, language used in sympathetic messages can also create stigma when they assume that all people experiencing homelessness misuse alcohol and drugs. Take for example message (127). The author is encouraging people to help people experiencing homelessness by providing them with water and notes “substance and alcohol misuse doesn’t suit this weather”. Unnecessary and non-topical references to substance misuse when communicating about people experiencing homelessness underlines the idea that through their addiction, they share the blame for being homeless...

Drawing on their findings, the researchers have developed a checklist for people writing and speaking about homelessness to help them avoid inadvertently perpetuating harmful assumptions about people experiencing homelessness:

• Focus on the person, not their housing status. Refer to “people experiencing homelessness” or “people sleeping rough” rather than a “homeless man” or “rough sleepers”, to avoid defining them solely by their housing status.
• Mention homelessness when relevant. We often add that a person is homeless even when this detail is not pertinent. For example, “A homeless man was questioned by the police in relation to the incident.”
• Respect the dignity of people affected by homelessness. Using homelessness as a point of comparison, whether for humour or to illustrate failure, reinforces harmful stereotypes and trivialises a complex issue.
• Steer clear of negative stereotypes about hygiene, appearance, or behaviour. People experiencing homelessness from temporary accommodation, overcrowding to rough sleeping do not have common characteristics related to their appearance or other person-level variables.
• Make clear that homelessness is much broader than rough sleeping. Street homelessness is the most visible form of homelessness but is not the only, and certainly not the biggest, form of homelessness.
• Avoid implying that homelessness makes places unsafe or undesirable. Statements like “Homeless people are making the park unsafe” create unnecessary fear and reinforce negative stereotypes, rather than addressing the real challenges of homelessness.
• Check facts first if linking substance use with homelessness. It is important to avoid assuming or implying a causal relationship between substance use and homelessness.
• Recognise that substance use may be a coping mechanism rather than the root cause of homelessness. In many cases, people may have started a problematic use of alcohol and drugs to cope with their homelessness.
• Be cautious in representing responses to the challenge of rough sleeping as failing to meet social norms. For example, someone washing in a public fountain might not have access to proper sanitation facilities, and this behaviour is a practical response to their situation.

The report and checklist were developed by Dr Apurv Chauhan and Professor Juliet Foster at the IoPPN and funded by the Centre for Homelessness Impact.