Homelessness is a persistent social challenge, impacting millions worldwide. Over 876,000 people experiencing homelessness (PEH) were recorded in the U.S. in 2025. Social bias is a significant barrier to alleviating homelessness, shaping public perception and influencing policymaking. Because online textual media and offline city council discourse both reflect and influence public opinion, they provide valuable signals for identifying and tracking social biases against PEH. We release the first multi-domain PEH bias corpus with a 16-category multi-label taxonomy: a 1,698-item stratified gold-standard set annotated by partner-trained raters, plus 48,389 GPT-4.1-labeled texts, drawn from Reddit, X (formerly Twitter), news, and council meeting transcripts across ten U.S. cities (2015-2025). We benchmark six prompted LLMs on the gold-standard set and complement F1 with prevalence-gap audits. Moderate F1 coexists with large miscalibration: every model over-tags "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) (+11.5 pp) and under-detects factual claims (-30.5 pp). Error analysis on consensus false positives reveals that models treat housing vocabulary and question form as opposition proxies, producing NIMBY false positives on pro-service text. The corpus and audit protocol support municipal PEH stigma monitoring without treating teacher labels as ground truth.

Eradicating poverty is the first goal in the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. However, aporophobia – the societal bias against people living in poverty – constitutes a major obstacle to designing, approving and implementing poverty-mitigation policies. This work presents an initial step towards operationalizing the concept of aporophobia to identify and track harmful beliefs and discriminative actions against poor people on social media. In close collaboration with non-profits and governmental organizations, we conduct data collection and exploration. Then we manually annotate a corpus of English tweets from five world regions for the presence of (1) direct expressions of aporophobia, and (2) statements referring to or criticizing aporophobic views or actions of others, to comprehensively characterize the social media discourse related to bias and discrimination against the poor. Based on the annotated data, we devise a taxonomy of categories of aporophobic attitudes and actions expressed through speech on social media. Finally, we train several classifiers and identify the main challenges for automatic detection of aporophobia in social networks. This work paves the way towards identifying, tracking, and mitigating aporophobic views on social media at scale.

Negative public perceptions of people living in poverty can hamper policies and programs that aim to help the poor. One prominent example of social bias and discrimination against people in need is the persistent association of poverty with criminality. The phenomenon has two facets: first, the belief that poor people are more likely to engage in crime (e.g., stealing, mugging, violence) and second, the view that certain behaviors directly resulting from poverty (e.g., living outside, panhandling) warrant criminal punishment. In this paper, we use large language models (LLMs) to identify examples of crime–poverty association (CPA) in English social media texts. We analyze the online discourse on CPA across eight geographically-diverse countries, and find evidence that the CPA rates are higher within the sample obtained from the U.S. and Canada, as compared to the other countries such as South Africa, despite the latter having higher poverty, criminality, and inequality indexes. We further uncover and analyze the most common themes in CPA posts and find more negative and biased attitudes toward people living in poverty in posts from the U.S. and Canada. These results could partially be explained by cultural factors related to the tendency to overestimate the equality of opportunities and social mobility in the U.S. and Canada. These findings have consequences for policy-making and open a new path of research for poverty mitigation with the focus not only on the redistribution of wealth but also on the mitigation of bias and discrimination against people in need.