A charity is urging journalists to adopt less negative language around its coverage of homelessness.

The Centre for Homelessness Impact has produced a report analysing how homelessness is frequently reported in UK newspapers, as well as of how it is referred to on social media.

It includes hundreds of examples of social media posts relating to the issue – some of them “openly offensive.”

Alongside the report, the authors have included a checklist intended for use by journalists in order to help avoid stigmatising language.

The report states: “The way we speak about homelessness can either help shift perspectives toward empathy and support, or reinforce damaging stereotypes.

“This checklist is designed to encourage the use of more inclusive, respectful language and to avoid inadvertently perpetuating harmful assumptions about people experiencing homelessness.”

The authors looked at more than 5,000 messages posted on social media that related to homelessness, and worked with people who have lived experience of homelessness to understand how many of these posts might be stigmatising.

The charity’s chief executive Ligia Teixeira, pictured, said: “Many of those original social media posts are reproduced within this report, and they make for uncomfortable but crucial reading.

“Some are openly offensive, but some use the common phrases and ideas that we all hear far too often and might even participate in ourselves. A number were expressed as jokes. Only by approaching how we discuss this topic with honesty and candour can we hope to address our language and make change.

“Importantly, following this meticulous process, this project built on these findings to provide an evidence-based checklist on how we can alter our language and seek to make change.

“By following its advice, we can ensure that we don’t contribute to the harmful assumptions and stigma that so frequently affect people experiencing homelessness and we can instead add to a positive, inclusive new way forward.

“We hope it will be of particular relevance to journalists when reporting on homelessness for public audiences.”

The checklist is reproduced below.

1. 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.

2. 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.”

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.