While charities succeed, they expose state failure

As we enter 2026, an estimated nine million people are at risk of becoming reliant on food banks. Sadly, this is no surprise – the number of food banks in the UK has grown by 8100% since 2010 to nearly 3,000 centres, which are already regularly used by as much as 4% of the population. The overwhelming majority of these food banks are funded and run by the Trussell Trust, an anti-poverty charity whose stated aim is to “end hunger”.

Last year, the trust distributed the equivalent of one food package every 11 seconds, with over one million parcels going to children. Whilst they provide food for all who need it, the trust have provided a safety net for marginalised groups in particular: 69% of those reliant on food banks are disabled, while renters, those with care experience as a child, and those on means-tested benefits also make up a disproportionately high percentage of those reliant on food banks. It would be near impossible not to commend the Trussell Trust’s work as exceptional and highly beneficial for society. They are an example of the tremendous good charities can do, so much so that they gained the support of a cross-party group of MPs to lobby the government to tackle the root causes of food poverty.

One could be forgiven, however, for asking why more has not been done by the government itself to tackle this unacceptable situation. How can it be that in the world’s sixth largest economy, as many as one in five are living on or below the line of food poverty? And for all the incredible work done by charities like the Trussell Trust, they themselves admit that the “urgent action” needed “to ensure no one in the UK needs a food bank to survive” is simply not achievable through philanthropic intimacy alone.

Whilst attempts at a ‘nanny state’ that runs citizens’ lives to the letter have by and large failed and proved ineffective – compared to charity – at provisioning an immediate response to social issues, at times it is clearly right for the government to intervene. While initially controversial, the creation of the NHS in 1948 (for which Health Secretary Nye Bevan was described as a “medical führer”) is now near universally accepted as an essential government provision. Eight decades on, the modern British social safety net stretches far beyond healthcare: the state now guarantees every child has access to education with financial support for a meal at school if needed, protects the elderly with a state pension and today, everyone in Britain has access to clean and safe drinking water. These ideas may once have seemed far-fetched or even radical, but today they are the bedrocks of our social contract. In many ways, Britain is an exemplification of what a good government can do.

What is clear, however, is that charities are at their most effective when working with, rather than instead of, the state to improve people’s lives

Of course, this is not to say the state should face no limits or that charity has no place in our society. Charities always have, and always will, make a tremendous difference in people’s lives. Just last month, researchers announced a breakthrough in treatment for the most common cause of death in the UK, Alzheimer’s disease, that could potentially reverse the currently incurable disease. In no small part, this is due to the work done and funded by groups like Alzheimer’s Society, who spent almost £100m on treatment and prevention last year.

What is clear, however, is that charities are at their most effective when working with, rather than instead of, the state to improve people’s lives. While larger charities like the Trussell Trust may be able to directly address issues themselves, for many charities the scale of the issue is so large that it is more effective to focus on awareness and pressuring the government to act – whether it be due to the harsh realities of the finances required, or the need for legislation. For example, last summer, the government confirmed it would repeal the Vagrancy Act of 1824, formally decriminalising rough sleeping and marking a tremendous victory for Crisis UK, an anti-homeless charity. This made their eight-year-long ‘Scrap the Act’ campaign a success, since it forced a change in the law through raising awareness and sustained public pressure on the state.

Perhaps the biggest indication of a charity’s success is the changing of its focus due to its original purpose no longer representing a fundamental issue in society. Take Barnardo’s, for instance, initially founded by Dr Thomas Barnardo to house and educate orphaned and destitute children who would otherwise end up on the street. As the societal benefits of orphanages and foster care – an idea partially pioneered by Barnardo’s – became evident to the state, the need for privately-run orphanages subsided. The charity closed its last orphanage in 1989 and now focuses on broader support for young people. Though it will undoubtedly continue to build its strong reputation for improving children’s lives, Barnardo’s legacy will always be that were Dr Barnardo alive today, he would have no more reason to keep setting up his orphanages.

In an ideal society, charities would focus on awareness and fundraising, whilst the state would help implement lasting changes to the law when needed

It is clear, then, that when used in tandem, both charities and governments can implement meaningful change. Due to their narrow focus and more efficient structures, charities are typically more effective at raising awareness and pressuring the government to act on an issue. However, the irreplicable resources and legislative ability of the state mean that for larger-scale issues, charities must ultimately work with the government to improve people’s lives. In an ideal society, charities would focus on awareness and fundraising, whilst the state would help implement lasting changes to the law when needed.

Far too often, however, they are instead filling gaps where the state ought to be ensuring a basic standard of living for all its citizens. Charities are a positive for society, and those involved should be commended, but it is equally important that we hold the government to account for using them to paper over the cracks of their own failure.