2007 Homeless Count > State and County Data Tables > Homeless Compared to Total Population
2007 Homeless Count Compared to the Total Population and Persons Below Poverty
Download this table: Excel | CSV
| State and County | Total Homeless Count 2007 | Level of Effort | July 1, 2006 Population Estimate | Homeless as a Percent of the Total Population | Poverty Estimate for 2004* | Homeless Count as a Percent of the 2004 Poverty Estimate | Level of Rurality** (1 is the most rural, 5 is the most urban) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Carolina | 6,759 | N/A | 4,321,249 | 0.16% | 622,083 | 1.09% | N/A |
| Abbeville | 14 | Low/Moderate | 25,935 | 0.05% | 3,862 | 0.36% | 3 |
| Aiken | 101 | Moderate/High | 151,800 | 0.07% | 21,694 | 0.47% | 5 |
| Allendale | 5 | None/Very Low | 10,748 | 0.05% | 3,130 | 0.16% | 1 |
| Anderson | 207 | Moderate/High | 177,963 | 0.12% | 23,639 | 0.88% | 4 |
| Bamberg | 9 | Low/Moderate | 15,678 | 0.06% | 3,510 | 0.26% | 1 |
| Barnwell | 19 | Low/Moderate | 23,265 | 0.08% | 4,473 | 0.42% | 3 |
| Beaufort | 71 | Moderate/High | 142,045 | 0.05% | 15,110 | 0.47% | 4 |
| Berkeley | 20 | Low/Moderate | 152,282 | 0.01% | 18,745 | 0.11% | 5 |
| Calhoun | 1 | None/Very Low | 15,026 | 0.01% | 2,389 | 0.04% | 1 |
| Charleston | 437 | Moderate/High | 331,917 | 0.13% | 48,523 | 0.90% | 5 |
| Cherokee | 44 | None/Very Low | 53,886 | 0.08% | 8,790 | 0.50% | 3 |
| Chester | 70 | Moderate/High | 32,875 | 0.21% | 5,461 | 1.28% | 3 |
| Chesterfield | 33 | None/Very Low | 43,191 | 0.08% | 8,325 | 0.40% | 3 |
| Clarendon | 214 | None/Very Low | 33,339 | 0.64% | 7,421 | 2.88% | 1 |
| Colleton | 18 | Low/Moderate | 39,467 | 0.05% | 7,944 | 0.23% | 3 |
| Darlington | 2 | None/Very Low | 67,551 | 0.00% | 13,262 | 0.02% | 3 |
| Dillon | 15 | None/Very Low | 30,984 | 0.05% | 6,856 | 0.22% | 3 |
| Dorchester | 46 | None/Very Low | 118,979 | 0.04% | 13,150 | 0.35% | 5 |
| Edgefield | 2 | None/Very Low | 25,261 | 0.01% | 3,865 | 0.05% | 3 |
| Fairfield | 20 | Low/Moderate | 23,810 | 0.08% | 4,241 | 0.47% | 1 |
| Florence | 172 | Moderate/High | 131,297 | 0.13% | 22,975 | 0.75% | 4 |
| Georgetown | 667 | Moderate/High | 60,860 | 1.10% | 9,911 | 6.73% | 3 |
| Greenville | 989 | Moderate/High | 417,166 | 0.24% | 52,150 | 1.90% | 5 |
| Greenwood | 311 | Moderate/High | 68,213 | 0.46% | 10,012 | 3.11% | 4 |
| Hampton | 2 | None/Very Low | 21,268 | 0.01% | 4,276 | 0.05% | 1 |
| Horry | 744 | Moderate/High | 238,493 | 0.31% | 31,359 | 2.37% | 5 |
| Jasper | 26 | Low/Moderate | 21,809 | 0.12% | 4,359 | 0.60% | 1 |
| Kershaw | 120 | Moderate/High | 57,490 | 0.21% | 7,483 | 1.60% | 3 |
| Lancaster | 248 | Moderate/High | 63,628 | 0.39% | 9,198 | 2.70% | 3 |
| Laurens | 32 | Low/Moderate | 70,374 | 0.05% | 11,162 | 0.29% | 3 |
| Lee | 2 | None/Very Low | 20,559 | 0.01% | 4,308 | 0.05% | 1 |
| Lexington | 153 | Moderate/High | 240,160 | 0.06% | 26,559 | 0.58% | 5 |
| McCormick | 11 | None/Very Low | 10,226 | 0.11% | 1,585 | 0.69% | 1 |
| Marion | 86 | Moderate/High | 34,684 | 0.25% | 7,823 | 1.10% | 3 |
| Marlboro | 3 | None/Very Low | 29,152 | 0.01% | 5,776 | 0.05% | 3 |
| Newberry | 12 | Low/Moderate | 37,762 | 0.03% | 5,956 | 0.20% | 3 |
| Oconee | 23 | Moderate/High | 70,567 | 0.03% | 8,817 | 0.26% | 3 |
| Orangeburg | 59 | None/Very Low | 90,845 | 0.06% | 18,985 | 0.31% | 3 |
| Pickens | 32 | Low/Moderate | 114,446 | 0.03% | 14,738 | 0.22% | 4 |
| Richland | 938 | Moderate/High | 348,226 | 0.27% | 47,401 | 1.98% | 5 |
| Saluda | 2 | None/Very Low | 19,059 | 0.01% | 2,960 | 0.07% | 1 |
| Spartanburg | 195 | Moderate/High | 271,087 | 0.07% | 35,538 | 0.55% | 5 |
| Sumter | 108 | Low/Moderate | 104,430 | 0.10% | 18,301 | 0.59% | 5 |
| Union*** See Cherokee/Union | None/Very Low | 28,306 | 0.00% | 4,565 | 0.00% | 3 | |
| Williamsburg | 82 | Low/Moderate | 36,105 | 0.23% | 8,990 | 0.91% | 1 |
| York | 308 | Moderate/High | 199,035 | 0.15% | 22,505 | 1.37% | 5 |
| Cherokee/Union | 30 | ||||||
| Missing | 3 | - | - | - | |||
| Other | 53 | - | - | - |
* U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
** Levels of rurality were determined based on the percent of the population considered to be in urban areas.
*** Statistics were not available for Union County.