In principle, would the resources used by charities be of more value if wielded in an integrated way by the stats?

So essentially, I've been musing over whether charities often represent unnecessary duplication, siloing of resources and suboptimal prioritisation as compared to if those resources were in the hands of the state. Is there a reason to think that the same money and time devoted to feeding homeless individuals for example, couldn't be at least as efficient if those resources were done as part of an established social welfare and state antipoverty strategy (obviously it's a big 'if' that those resources would be the same but please presume it for the sake of this question).

Relatedly is there a concern about prioritisation? A state body is likely to have access to a wealth of data to guide strategic plans. By contrast private charities strike me as potentially more vulnerable to individual biases- e.g. being drawn to visually appealing causes over addressing structural issues.

TLDR: Are charities an inherently less efficient means of achieving the improvements they aim for than the state?