You are kidding, right?
Pew has funded some of the most expensive failures in philanthropic history, with very little to show for it. But it's not just Pew, its most of the old-line foundations and a substantial percentage of the new money foundations that have continued on this path.
Both foundations and nonprofits in this country have a lot of 'splaining to do. Foundations because the aren't accountable to anyone for results or their grantmaking practices. Their accountablility is with their peers in other foundations; mentions in the MSM and their visibility at A- and B-list social events. Often, the criteria by which they are judged by their peers differs significantly from what they profess to provide to their grantees and affected populations. They typically (but not always) are staffed by synchophants (primarily), and academics who hate teaching, students, or critical challenges to their approaches. They typically approach huge problems with and underwhelming array of resources and impossible demands for progress and accountability given the sizes of their grants.
This is not to say that EVERY foundation behaves this way. I have worked with a few that have very smart, dedicated and forward-thinking staff, but these are by far the exception rather than the rule. Most, like the Gates Foundation, have a singular focus: to get their name out front and associated with high-profile wins, rather than sustained improvement over time for lots of people.
On the nonprofit side, foundation-supported nonprofits tend to lie about ("spin") their impact as a matter of course, the best of them have figured out foundation dynamics and play to those dynamicsm, rather than competing on the basis of their ideas, or ability to deliver results. The best nonprofits have executives who can overlook their funding/service-delivery paradoxes with a straight face, and who come from the same social milieu as foundation staffers.
I'm inclined to believe Dr. Kochi's views in this area based on my past experience with philanthropic organizations. I find many of the old-line philanthropic attitudes insufferable, and reading accounts of Dr. Kochi's career, I suspect that his pragmatic, inclusivist approach to reducing tuberculosis and malaria directly conflicts with the agenda of the major funder in that domain.
