New York's Attorney General has declared The United Homeless Organization (U.H.O.) a fake.
As the New York Times reported, U.H.O. has for years been a fixture throughout New York where its "employees" peopled tables asking for donations to address the needs of the homeless. It turns out though that, while the folks at the tables get essentially paid a percent of the "take", the remaining sums go to the founder and the director who spend their money on themselves.
For shame, for shame. I suppose though that the good news is that at least the homeless folk at the tables were generating a modicum of income that they maybe wouldn't have generated in some other way. And also good news: passerbys cared enough to share their wealth.
But, should everyone have know better than to give to the fake nonprofit? I don't know, but maybe donors didn't really care. Maybe nonprofit or not, their gifts satisfied their respective needs. After all, there is a wide range of folks throughout this and many other cities who, while not representing a nonprofit, do solicit funds for themselves, have a real need, and aren't nonprofit. Take for instance the street musician or the war veteran.
Is nonprofit really the only legitiamate recipient of donative money?