It's not something for nothing. It's a crib in exchange for doing something, in this case . She entered into an agreement with the Hope Center (a contract of sorts), where she agreed to take a class and, in exchange the Hope Center agreed to provide her with a crib. The Hope Center owned the cribs, and if they wanted to give them to people in exchange for the class, that's their decision to make. You may view taking the class as "doing nothing," but that's not your call.
From my viewpoint there isn't any difference between "Angela" and then thieves
If you think there's no difference, you're missing the operative word, theives. Again, you may not view it as a fair deal, but the Hope Center willingly agreed to give these people cribs in exchange for taking a class. By virtue of that agreement, "Angela" and the others had a right to take the cribs (just like you or I have a right to take something that is offered to us, say as a gift). The Hope Center did NOT agree to give the cribs to the people who stole them, and so those people had no right to take them.
Agreed, I may have come across a bit harsh. But those relying on charity are really expecting something for nothing. Thieves expect something for nothing so in reality although there is a distinction, both feel entitled to something that they have not earned in the traditional sense. The widespread sense of entitlement in the population is one of the major problems bringing this country to its knees.