You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.
Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.
You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness/
May science have no mercy on your ignorance.