Sure. But what you're asking for and what The Guardian is implying are two different things. You:

When I read this article, what struck me over and over was that there wasn't a lot of data collecting and there isn't a lot of communication going on and I can't help but think that those can be really useful.

The Guardian, your summation:

I think what they're trying to illustrate with busing is that instead of being a solution to actively solve the problem of homelessness, cities are just unloading people elsewhere for someone and somewhere else to deal with without much concern as to the outcome of the individuals to actively solve the problem of the local homeless population.

"Just unloading people elsewhere." "Just." The Guardian's argument is that there's no reason to believe this program is successful without acknowledging that "success" when dealing with the homeless population is a truly low bar, without acknowledging that what data is available points to success, and without acknowledging that of the 20,000 people they tracked, the only negative outcomes they could find were four people who ended up back in the cities they were bussed out of.

The Guardian has given you the impression that this program is a problem. That this is a policy of heartlessness and inhumanity. That ZOMG those 8,000 people San Francisco bussed elsewhere would somehow be better off if they stayed in San Francisco. And they have done so through artless manipulation, and it's annoying.