I think if you allow a somewhat close reading your quote supports my point. >"Half of the people we spoke to ended up rough sleeping because they had nowhere e

I think if you allow a somewhat close reading your quote supports my point. >"Half of the people we spoke to ended up rough sleeping because they had nowhere else to turn." This is a little bit ambiguous, but I think one fair interpretation is that the other half they spoke to had somewhere else to turn. (It is also possible they had no information on half.) So if half do have a place they could go (possibly with the condition of not using drugs, which is the reason they don't accept the accommodation?) and some number of others had burned bridges "due to drug and/or alcohol misuse", that's already a majority. Again this is a pretty close reading, but what I said is not controversial at all if you dig into some of the data and don't just read press releases which selectively quote the studies, or misleadingly combine statistics about people who have lost a residence (due to foreclosure, health, or other financial hardship) but have shelter with friends or family and people who are sleeping outside without shelter.