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.