Homelessness is not an economic problem: It is a psychological problem. And I say this with a full knowledge of how dangerous mixing psychology and politics can be. (The Soviets loved to class dissidents as mentally ill; I am not too worried that the Democrat establishment will do this, however, because they hate conservatives too much to give them an excuse for their actions and could not then justify maltreatment and torture---as is being visited on Jan 6th protestors for charges that are much less serious than those committed by BLM rioters. For example, most are charged with illegal parading and trespassing on government property, which is traditionally considered less serious than arson, yet, they are, nonetheless, being kept in constantly lit cells to disrupt their sleep and being subjected to solitary confinement while none of Portland's arsonists are being subjected to such treatment.)
Its two prongs are overt mental illness and addiction. While some people are sometimes technically homeless due to job loss (along with refusal to make use of the welfare system or a lack of knowledge regarding how to use it), those "temporarily homeless" are a small minority---as is obvious to anyone who has had any experience with them. After all, most of us have friends and family who would help us out during a period of bad luck: The question then becomes, why have these people warn out their welcome? Well, mental health and addiction problems tend to exhaust friends and family.
So, my proposal is that we have to circumvent this weird court decision, Martin v. Boise, regarding "criminalization of homelessness" by instead making it a justification for commitment either to a drug rehab center or to a mental institution. Given the huge amounts being spent on homelessness, hospitalization in a mental institution would actually be cheaper as would drug treatment programs: And these approaches would likely be more effective than simply offering handouts. And by using the civil commitment law instead of criminal statutes, I believe governments can argue that they are remaining within the bounds of the Martin v. Boise decision. Of course, commitment might require that the officers observe and testify to a behavior that actually justifies it, but---frankly---this behavior is not too hard to find. Furthermore, requiring the observation of either public drug use or disordered behavior would actually result in getting the most problematic individuals off the streets---so it would ensure an efficient use of resources.