Of course. Everyone has an agenda. Examples in this field are: (1) minimise the tax burden for their donors (2) minimise poverty (3) to grab as much funding as possible. There are many more.

What is interesting about the results (which include peer reviewed studies - the one in mentioned by the NYT doesn't seem to be peer reviewed) suggesting that cash handouts are more efficient than than more complicated welfare programs is that the cash handouts would eliminate the middle man and maximise the bang for buck of helping people in poverty. I.E. minimising the size of the charity or the government bureaucracy.