To say that some charities shouldn’t exist?

[YourJadeSeal]

Shouldn’t governments take responsibility for things like homelessness and food banks instead of relying on charity?

Most do 'combine' by being under the umbrella of the Trussell Trust. But the problem with more and more doing that, is that the flexibility and adaptability of the banks to help people, becomes more rigid. The different foodbanks that I refer people to, have different strengths and weaknesses. That means that I can refer the right kind of person to the right kind of food bank. I wouldn't want to see more homogeneity.

As you probably know, the TT only allows four visits (though I can generally make a case for our service users to have a couple more) and can't offer fresh food. So I use the community fridge network for those who need some fruit and veg, another food bank for those who need a hot meal serving to them, and another for those who need toiletries and cleaning products, or nappies.

A variety of food banks is a good thing.

Can we get cause and effect in the right order.

People's want of food doesn't cause the creation of foodbanks. Foodbanks are created because (mainly) charities choose to create them. Foodbanks could still exist in a 'perfect' world. And even in a 'perfect' world, they'd experience demand.

So the existence of foodbanks simply tells you that someone's chosen to create them.

Thanks @cakeorwine

I was googling earlier and it seems that, as well as areas and rescue, the Coastguard service deals with a range of other issues including maritime security, vessel traffic management, pollution, salvage and civil emergency and disaster response.

The Coastguard does have its own rescue helicopters and rescue teams, but they often send out RNLI lifeboats. I guess it depends on the nature of the emergency and who is best places to deal with each one.

I think you're behind the times. At the Foodbank I support we offer money for gas/electricity, and offer debt counselling services ( approximately £88k debts restructured etc this year so far), then when people have exhausted their few weeks of Foodbank support they can pay a small contribution (£2.60 approx.) each week and choose whatever they need from our community shop ( within limits of course.)

At Christmas /Easter etc we offer (a choice of seasonal food/gifts/ clothing for children /adults.

Incidentally no one is paid for organising the Food Bank etc or debt advice service only the ex Food Bank client who is paid to help run the shop.

We rely on donations from local shops, neighbourhood groups, churches, political party branches etc. , monetary and in kind.

Hospice care which is almost fully funded through charity!

Yes. I’ve just increased my monthly donation to my local hospice as they will now be affected by the NI increase and increasing costs generally. I think I read only 21% of their funding comes from government support.

It disgraceful isn’t it!

@mumda you seem to be now interested in slagging off volunteers then in being informed. The whole reason that TT did banks have a limit on visits, is that the aim is to get people on to the benefits they need, or with help managing their debt.

While the government doesn't open or operate foodbanks, those charities, churches and those volunteers that you sneer at are all we have. The foodbanks can't be based at supermarkets because they don't have the space (though our local supermarket is incredibly generous to both the local foodbank and the community fridge) and the logistics of people just turning up there for free food is going to be a nightmare for the shop, and too public for those who need to ask for it. .

I'm very grateful to those organisations that host food banks, and to their volunteers. My charity's service users are also very grateful for them, and for our referrals. I always check in after I've issued a referral voucher, and every one of them has been glad they went and reported being treated kindly and sensitively.

I'm not sure. A lot comes down to practical questions and I'm not convinced completely turning over support to the state doesn't create some other problems. There is a strong tendency for people to see the state as a thing that is separate from all of the people who actually contribute productively. That seems less common with charitable organizations.

However, I think there are some other, maybe even more significant issues.

One is that charitable organizations can in many cases be much more nimble and responsive, especially to local situations, than the state. They are much better at emerging according to real needs in the community.

Another is that whenever you have support coming from the state, it also is giving a kind of control to the state. The state has the ability to tie support to certain outcomes it wants.

I'd also argue that even indirect state support, through charities, can cause various conflicts of interest.

Then there is a slightly different issue - there is a really significant tendency for those who are in a position to give help, when they have turned that over to the state to do through their taxes, to see their job as finished. Where there are real problems, be they individual or collective, that's rarely enough though. It's not just social benefits of some kind that are needed, what's needed is concrete care from people who are invested in giving that. Turning that work over to the state, and professionalizing it, can have the effect of making that exchange into a very impersonal transaction.

I suspect most people who work for charities would tell you that they would love it if they became redundant because the problem their charity helps with has been resolved. However, we all know that that is never going to happen in 99.9999% of cases, so you just have to park that thought and get on with it.

Yes for medical research. Treatments get better over time but there is always room for improvement. Medical charities will always be needed.

I disagree in the case of food charity. Food banks were not much of a thing before 2010.

I think there's two separate questions here:

First one: should the current level of need for homelessness charities and food banks exist? Absolutely not - the state should be preventing the levels of poverty and homelessness by addressing the systemic causes and righting the failures of government policy that cause it.

Second one: should charities have a role in addressing need, or should this wholly be the responsibility of government? I think it's really important we have a strong civil society and don't rely entirely on the state.

I generally believe in a big, interventionist state - I think those with broader shoulders should pay more tax to support those with greatest need. But I completely agree with the arguments @TempestTost has made above more clearly than I can articulate.

Basically, putting all your eggs in one basket called 'state support' isn't good for society.

Charities can be responsive to local need - both in speed and in actually understanding exactly what the need is and meeting it.

Charities can do things that meet need but wouldn't align perfectly with government policy, so the government simply wouldn't do it. A state-run food bank doesn't really make sense.

Charities can more trusted by those in need - it's hard to get away from the power imbalance issues with state-run service (you can't really get away from the fact that at the extreme end of things the state has the power to deprive you of your liberty). Think about charities working with refugees with no legal status.

Charities are an 'insurance policy' against the state - you can't rely on the state always being there and in the best interests of those in need (I know people who work in homelessness charities in the USA and they are despondent about what they think is going to happen in the next four years, but thank god they exist!)

Charities can speak truth to power and mobilise communities to speak up against injustice. They can bring about change to government policy.

Charities can provide people with access to justice and challenge the state though the legal system (look at law centres or the legal work organisations like Shelter do)

Yes - it's imperfect. Small charities can be poorly run or in some cases do more harm than good. Large charities can get too close to government or too invested in perpetuating their own dominance. But in an imperfect world they are vital.

Bloody hell that was an essay. Clearly I feel more strongly about this than I realised (for the record I work for a charity but have previously worked in central government so have seen it from both sides)

I don't know that much about medical research charities and I'd be really interested why there's so much reliance on charities to fund this. It doesn't seem immediately obvious to me (obviously the need to fund medical research makes sense, but not why charities pick this up).

I know with air ambulances in England (and probably with the RNLI, thinking about it) - it's just not really a very cost effective service in terms of the numbers of lives saved. It's something that people are willing to donate money to, because people like the idea of helping to save lives. But if you're the government that has to make hard-nosed choices about whether to e.g. put money into ambulances or a helicopter, ambulances win.

I suppose from a philisohical perspective what we could say is this:

Citizens fund the state. Citizens fund charities.

So whether we are meeting needs through the apparatus of the state, or through the apparatus of charitable organizations, it depends on people creating wealth and then passing it on for the good of others.

Now - the state can demand taxes, to be used as they like, but only to a certain extent in a democracy. So even in terms of the state if people don't want or can't pay the taxes, or don't like what they are being spent on, they will resist and it will not be a politically viable course of action.

All that being the case, why is it that it would be morally preferable for the state to direct the money for these uses rather than charities? It might be practically more effective in some cases, but in others it seems like it would be less effective - it will depend on the type of issue and possible solutions.

But it's not at all clear to me why it would be morally preferable to have state run help if it won't be any more effective.

Charities can be nimble and find new delivery models and react to emerging issues far quicker than government. But charities can’t scale like governments can. There’s space for both. What charities do should flex to fill the space between the state and the market, which is constantly evolving.

Government already bears a lot of medical research costs, as do companies, but it is incredibly expensive to develop new treatments, devices and diagnostic tests, so charities are part of the equation too.

But for food banks, it’s about correcting something that was not a problem before. Government policy needs to tackle the societal problems driving this new need, so that people can survive temporary difficulties financially without needing external help. Like they used to be able to. ie ensuring that families are resilient and can hold onto their dignity.

Well…

Charities choose to create them because they (we) respond to the need they see around them. We wouldn’t do that unless there was need - it’d be absurd to, because you’d expend effort and money setting up something that no one used.

Things have shifted over the past decade to drive the rise in food poverty. If you want to read into it, the Rowntree Foundation’s research into the cost of living/cost of essentials v minimum wage or benefits is a good place to start.

That's an interesting point.

I think there was some research into "Most lives saved per money donated" and things like vaccination programmes and water aid in developing countries are the most "cost effective" if you are going to look at it from that perspective.

One of the main causes of poverty is expensive debt. It’s fantastic that your foodbank offers support to reduce/manage it. I remember in our really hard up days (a very long time ago) taking a Provident Check to buy some necessities for the DC. It was paid back at £x a week, didn’t seem much, but the interest rate was a shock! The better off we became, the cheaper borrowing options became.

It would be great if there were Credit Unions linked to foodbanks. I don’t know if finances are taught in school, but they should be. When I was a housing worker, I saw households in very similar fairly limited financial circumstances prioritising their spending so differently their standards of living were poles apart.

@TempestTost

But it's not at all clear to me why it would be morally preferable to have state run help if it won't be any more effective.

I suppose to some extent it depends philosophically what you think the role of the state should be (like the whole David Cameron 'Big Society' thing - tends to get slated as being cover to just cut services but there's an underlying political philosophy about the state doing less and empowering communities do do more)

Assuming as you say charities/civil society could provide a service just as effectively as the state - I'd say the argument for state delivery is that it's democratic.

Anything delivered by central or local government is led by people that we have collectively elected to do so, with a mandate to deliver certain things, and funded equitably via taxation. You get equal say in who gets elected regardless of how wealthy you are.

Whereas services delivered by charities are to a greater or lesser extent subject to the whims of the public, and particularly those with the deepest pockets. Dogs homes can rake in donations while charities for ex-offenders might struggle.

Look back at the Victorian philanthropists - a huge amount of charity was in the hands of the benevolence of wealthy individuals, which was aligned to their morality and values, and who was "deserving" and "undeserving".

Not that democracy necessarily gives us better outcomes (looking at you again, USA) but in principle the idea is that we all get equal input into what we collectively prioritise.

I was coming on to write just this.

I am a charity trustee, and we can provide financial and practical help in days rather than weeks that it takes the local authority. We are less severe about qualifying criteria as well, so can help those people in grey areas.

Regarding food banks - their provision is not a new thing.

We have always provided needy families with free food, whether through families, neighbours, and particularly, churches. Nowadays, it is just more organised, but it is the same type of people who are boots on the ground.

The need for foodbanks is very complex. Why don't families have enough money? We've always managed job loss and other unforeseen circumstances, but what is the reason for the perceived dramatic increase in demand? It is not always the government's fault, apart from condoning an overall breakdown in society.

I do find the proliferation of food banks interesting. Within living memory we had a period of grinding poverty and very high unemployment especially in the North (the Thatcher era). Boys from the Blackstuff, gis a job etc. 3 million unemployed. Benefits not as generous as now. Literally no jobs in some areas. However I personally don’t remember such widespread, organised food banks as there are now. There might have been the odd church run thing, or Salvation Army, some Catholic charities like St. Vincent De Paul etc. But nothing of the size and scale we have today. I’m not saying food banks aren’t needed. I just think there’s been a huge change in society. Maybe there are more wealthy early retirees to staff them as volunteers whereas in the past people stopped work due to ill health or carried on.

Many of them have certainly become hubs for other things, some offer hot meals, breakfasts, debt advice etc..

Also now they exist maybe it’s quite an easy way for richer people to give without actually giving money?