Mississippi and Alabama need religious services because religious people suffocated the government. I'd much rather be poor in San Francisco and enjoying public services than be poor in Mississippi hoping for religious services.
It’s not really voluntary, which brings in the question of if it’s really charity.
> I'd much rather be poor in San Francisco and enjoying public services than be poor in Mississippi hoping for religious services
Which public services do you think SF has that aren’t available in Mississippi? I think you’ll find that the real difference is tolerance of homelessness in general and programs that allow continued drug use while receiving benefits.
Medicaid expansion.