Like any other organization, relief agencies need funding, they need support from local government, they need positive publicity if they're to continue. The people doing those jobs are focused on those results, not the work those in the field are doing.
You asked for an example. About 20 years ago, my colleagues' three-year-old daughter was kidnapped from in front of her apartment house. She was a sweet, blue-eyed, blonde-haired child, and her search became a huge media frenzy: non-stop reporting as police followed lead after lead.
She started working with a local branch of a national missing children's organization. At her first meeting, the director told her that her daughter' disappearance was "the best thing that has happened to them" because the publicity pulled in so many donations.
He wasn't a bad person, or incident to get daughter; but his role was making the agency successful, and he evaluated things from that standpoint. I don't think that's at all unusual for these agencies.
Did you read the article? This is not an entirely uncommon situation, either. The corruption is often seen as a cost of doing business by interested parties with other priorities, something which all parties are usually generally aware. After a war (a scenario in which NGOs thrive) the existing social structure that has the capacity and organization to execute projects is often the winning faction, which as often as not didn't prevail by being virtuous.