This page is a link to data referenced in the Homelessness White Paper for Anderson County, released June 6, 2025.  

Below are the following:

  • White Paper Page 2 - Additional data from the Point in Time Count – January 2025 (This data is not available yet, and will be added when it becomes available)

  • White Paper Page 8 – Public Feedback & Pastors SWOT Analysis

  • White Paper Page 9 – Tent City Case Study


Page 2 - Ongoing Updates

Page 8 - Public Feedback

We will update this section as pertinent information becomes available.


SWOT Comments from Public Meeting - March 18, 2025 (Synthesized from Raw Data by Nate Knox, The LOT Project)

Strengths (Internal Positive Factors)

Responsive and active community

Problem is solvable

Strong sense of unity and coming together

Inclusion of youth in solutions

Coordination of services
Recognition of the humanity of individuals

Keeping people safe from the environment

Ability to learn from other cities/towns facing similar issues

Support from law enforcement

Leadership figures like Dave Phillips

Top-down processes for addressing homelessness

Abundance of professionals working on the issue

Support from local churches and church leaders

Innovation and imagination in problem-solving

Bringing art into the solution

Meeting people where they are with compassion
Availability of space/buildings for solutions

Resource guide for services

Variation of services available

Willingness to "rip off the bandage" and address the issue directly

Building trust within the community

Existing assets in the community

Weaknesses (Internal Negative Factors)

Destruction of property by some individuals

Law enforcement response time is not fast enough

Drug and alcohol abuse challenges

Lack of greater resources for support services

Self-interest of nonprofits, businesses, and individuals experiencing homelessness

Lack of public restrooms

Need to coordinate resources at the county, city, and state levels

Barriers due to lack of proper government identification

Need for more informed local government voting

Insufficient affordable housing options

Not enough temporary housing/beds

Need for a shift in public perception and viewpoints

Limited access to resources

Inadequate affordable medical care

Unfavorable business climate
Escalation of homelessness since COVID

Poor communication about available resources

Issues with people being bussed into the community

Lack of communication between businesses and nonprofits

Limited funding for unhoused individuals
Need for additional housing solutions

Structural "Catch-22" barriers preventing progress

Large county with underserved rural areas

Need to better identify geographic distribution of homeless populations

Untapped potential for partnerships and repurposing unused properties

Lack of empathy and compassion from some sectors

Need for community education to foster understanding

Negative rhetoric around the issue—should be a "together" effort, not divisive

Limited funding for mental health resources

Housing insecurity preventing access to medical care

Strained relationship between county and city governments

Opportunities (External Positive Factors)

Initiatives to help build strong parents and families

Expansion of beds, shelters, food, and job opportunities
Improvements in public transportation
Mentorship programs in schools

Coordination of health and social services

Financial literacy workshops for those in need

Utilizing vacant buildings and houses for affordable housing

Leveraging public school resources for community support

Creating a centralized hub/website for volunteer opportunities

Increased funding opportunities for nonprofits
Expanding mental health services

"Homeless for the homeless" simulation to build empathy

Ride-to-work programs (e.g., Mercy Center)

Donations of bus tickets to improve mobility

Stronger collaboration between community partners

Repurposing old mill buildings for housing solutions

Expansion of affordable housing projects

Recruiting volunteers to support nonprofit services

Mentorship and internship programs in local manufacturing companies

Programs to help people repair their homes

Keeping pets in secure environments (e.g., dog fencing programs)


Threats (External Negative Factors)

Lack of action from key stakeholders

Spread of misinformation (e.g., social media platforms like Anderson Rants/Raves)

Egos and competition among nonprofit organizations
Safety concerns related to homelessness

Incidents of violence

People being bussed into the community without proper support systems
State open-carry laws affecting safety and resources

Public resistance to providing resources for homeless individuals

Persistent poverty affecting the broader community

Mental health issues contributing to homelessness
Generational challenges, including lack of parenting support

________________________________________________________________

ACTF Feedback Form (Responses given online after public meeting and distribution of White Paper draft) All feedback received as of 05/15/2025 totaled 6 responses

The Proposed solutions to homelessness are realistic

  • Strongly Agree (3 votes)

  • Agree (3 votes)

The proposed solutions to homelessness are appropriate for our community

  • Strongly Agree (4 Votes)

  • Agree (2 votes)

The narrative of the White Paper daily represents all parties involved

  • Disagree (2 Votes)

  • Neutral (1 Vote)

  • Agree (2 Votes)

  • Strongly Agree (1 Vote)

What questions would you like to see answered in future drafts of the White Paper? 

  • Trends over time 

  • How has concentrating homeless services in downtown Anderson negatively affected the small business in the central business district? 

    • Which nonprofits are openly sharing statistical data?

    • Which nonprofits are sharing detailed financial data? (Guidestar Platinum status?) -traveler aid funding from each (and aggregated), daily food spend from each (and aggregated), etc..

    • How do you know if there is a redundancy and opportunities for consolidation and efficiency?

  • I would like to see more data presented. I would also like to see more graphs. I think there needs to be more input from downtown Business community 

  • How is the community being educated about homelessness? 

    • In particular, how are these agencies working with downtown businesses to form relationships and make sure they know where to send the homeless. 

  • How to accomplish better solutions for the chronic homeless/law enforcement options to remove or restrain of discourage people that harass people 

What comments would you like to make in response to the white paper draft? 

  • None

  • Good first step taking “doing something”. It  was focused on and biased to the needs of the homeless population- County Wide. Yes, this is needed, but an equal emphasis put on the idea of putting all services in one location. Can we support and receive all Homeless from Starr, Belton, Pendleton, Clemson, into Downtown Anderson. If that happens, please project that out 5-10 years and what that looks like. 

  • The white paper is entirely too long. Folks who are invested in this concern in our community might read the full 5 pages. The regular consumer is not going to read the full document. The coalition needs a 1-2 page document that has the problem, and the solutions. If additional information needs to be presented, then it can go into an appendix. Make it short, simple, add data graphs, make it easily digestible. 

  • Thank you SO much to those involved

  • It is clear the immediate overwhelming need is emergency shelter; the paper clarifies this first step

  • Love it

What concerns do you have about our proposed solutions for homelessness?

  • Time to action

  • Limited in scope. A solution needs to include how to solve the stress being put on local downtown businesses by co-locating homeless services within easy walking distance 

  • My concern is that there isn’t equal representation on the advisory committee coming up with solutions. In order for any of these solutions to be effective and adopted by the entire community, there needs to be full representation from all parties who are impacted. I am a non-profit leader in the community and i see this as a gap, so I am sure others in the community also see it as a gap.

  • Funding

  • Having shelter and cold shelter away from the business center is a really good idea

  • Timeliness and funding 

Pastor’s SWOT analysis - from an Anderson Pastor’s Luncheon - Late March 2025

Strengths 

  • We’re good at providing food

  • More cohesion between nonprofits than what is usual

  • Robust nonprofit sector

  • Robust basic needs assistance

  • Resource guide

  • Law enforcement

Weaknesses

  • Lack of unified direction

  • General overwhelmed feeling within our community

  • Lack of mental health resources

  • General “sweeping under the rug” by folks who don’t want to address homelessness, addiction, and mental illness

  • External outlooks is that the “solution is covered” by our robust networks of non profits 

  • Disconnect between nonprofit sector and business owners

  • Police have their ‘hands tied’. Prosecution is limited. 

  • Lack of long term solutions

  • Immediate needs overwhelm the future needs 

Opportunities

  • Government and local organization programs to assist in keeping the housed housed 

  • Day labor opportunities 

  • Low Barrier employment opportunities

  • Property donated to Anderson Housing and Homelessness Alliance 

Threats

  • Population shift: if we do nothing we could have a boom in homeless population

  • If we don’t act businesses will suffer

  • Threat to our economic vitality 

  • Transplants driving up property value and displacing poor locals 

  • Lost souls, if we do not act what will happen to these people made in the image of God who are suffering? 

  • Our own souls: if we do not act what can be said about the state of our faith community? 





Page 9 - Tent City Case Study

The Power of Collaboration: Tent City Case Study

In 2005, a new bridge was built across the main railroad tracks in Greenville as the route of S.C. Highway 183 shifted and became the Pete Hollis Highway. This new bridge created a convenient space for camping. It was flat, accessible and somewhat protected from the rain. Homeless people soon began living under the bridge, a small number at first. The numbers grew steadily, to about 30 people in November 2013. After a series of articles in The Greenville News that fall, people from the community began bringing donations to the residents under the bridge: clothing, heaters, blankets, tents, sleeping bags, food and water. The population began to grow rapidly. By January 2014, it had become a large tent city comprising three separate camps, with more than 100 people living under the bridge. This settlement became dangerous to its own residents and nearby neighborhoods. There was violence, crime, health hazards, mounds of trash and increasing human waste. Many of the original inhabitants from November had left by January, displaced by new, more violent arrivals.  

The process of resolving Tent City involved many players, but it had to begin with the belief that it could be done. Legal constraints were a major barrier, and the South Carolina Department of Transportation was contacted to see if they could help. They were concerned about the issue, but did not believe they could legally allow the property (owned by the state) to be posted for “no trespassing”. After extensive discussions, they realized they could legally lease the property under the bridge to some other entity, and Greenville County signed a lease to use this property for future storage needs in July 2014.   

A group of service providers – Miracle Hill Ministries, United Ministries, Triune Mercy Center, The Salvation Army, Greenville Area Mental Health, and Beth Templeton of Our Eyes Were Opened – began meeting to discuss how to compassionately help the people under the bridge transition into housing if negotiations between Greenville County and the state succeeded. On behalf of the group, requests were made of local foundations and more than $130,000 was committed for necessary costs. 

The original plan was for a large temporary shelter to be rented elsewhere, everyone moved to the new shelter and then worked with individually. Eventually the group determined it would be better to work with Tent City residents one-on-one under the bridge, establishing trust, exploring and offering to help with creative alternative housing options, and assuring the residents that the providers would “go the distance” with them. Front-line service providers who were already meeting weekly in a coffee club to discuss how to help specific chronically homeless individuals determined to go weekly under the bridge as a group. This new approach would build personal relationships between front-line workers and inhabitants, and it would make all possible resources available for solutions. 

The front-line workers began working with Tent City residents in June. By the end of August, most of the residents had left, many having moved into a better or healthier housing than the tent they lived in under the bridge. Many started in a Salvation Army or Miracle Hill Shelter. Some entered an addiction recovery program, some took advantage of mental health services, some moved to other outdoor locations. Others moved directly from under the bridge into a motel or into an apartment with the help of project funds. In the fall, Greenville County hired a contractor to clean up the site. It has since been fenced.  

Direct costs attributed to the project were approximately $100,000, including Greenville County’s clean-up costs and some reimbursement of overhead for the partner agencies.   

This collaborative, systematic yet human approach solved an urgent and potentially volatile homelessness problem without violence and with little controversy.