The linked article which you are LITERALLY commenting on is among many parts of this data gathering. The Utah experiment has tons of data also.
To say what the data is, would be to literally post the text which you are answering to (you know, the one you supposedly read before commenting)
A text which has facts that you contradicted several times in this thread.
On top of this you don't seem to know what the meaning of the words you use are. Let me help you, socialism is when the state controls the means of production. Unless you are literally arguing that helping a homeless person is the same as the government nationalizing every company on the stock exchange, then you are using words wrong. Though not surprising, given that you seem to comment on articles you haven't read.
BTW, the way Portland tried is terrible. That is why these successful experiments are so interesting to read about for those who don't have closed minds.
The linked article is not research or even data - it's a Guardian article, which has close to zero credibility as far as I am concerned (nothing against Guardian per se, newspapers are terrible sources of knowledge in general).
Even having said that, the article does not seem to have any data on what I was worrying about - i.e. to what degree subsidising homeless people is incentivising homelessness. It instead talks about a programme (not homelessness itself), which seems to be dealing with homelessness by... providing subsidised housing. They don't say how much they're spending a year (presumably many millions, judging by the scale of the operation), and in 2018 their results are... six people who stopped needing the subsidy and went on to live independently. Given the fact that they house 3500 people, a yearly conversion rate of 0.2% seems abysmal, and may actually point to what I was worrying about - i.e. homeless people not wanting to be go back to the society that much, as long as the state is subsiding their housing.
Funny aside, according to the article, 70% of homless in Finland do not actually live on the streets, but with friends or family (but, I am assuming, would prefer to live on their own). According to this standard, there are millions of homeless in Poland. Although I wouldn't be suprised if this particular bit of reporting was mangled and that the truth is more complicated.
First you say the guardian isn't reliable, but then you quote it and cherry pick data from it. So which is it? Not reliable or not reliable for facts you don't like?
Before you were talking about 'communist Portland', you also said that all initiatives to help the homeless are 'socialism'.
I honestly want to learn about this. You might have a point, but you seem to have an agenda, for example you made up up that all costs related to homeless programs are new costs (on top of existing programs) when the article clearly states otherwise.
It seems you want to play to win, not to learn and your mind is already made up. You have already made up facts multiple times in this thread and used words wrong without regard for the truth. This to me shows a lack of intelectual honesty and I don't really feel like engaging such behavior any further.
Have you ever heard the word data?
You are trying to argue data that has been gathered meticulously with an anecdote.
If I need to explain more, I'm afraid we won't be able to communicate.