The Packard Foundation's Conserving California Landscape Initiative (CCLI), a US $175 million 5-year (1998-2003) program intended to conserve 250,000 acres of open space in three regions in California, exemplifies the potential contribution and pitfalls of a private foundation's engagement in contemporary place-based, collaborative conservation. The achievements and limitations of this philanthropic effort are revealed largely through interviews of program officers, grantees, and public officials. Focusing conservation in three regions of the state, employing deliberate grant leveraging, promoting conservation partnerships, approaching conservation on multiple fronts, and building nonprofit capacities, CCLI preserved more than 300,000 acres of land, generated around $700 million in matching funds, raised the profile of conservation in the state and local communities' agenda, and fostered collaboration among diverse publics. However positive, CCLI efforts inevitably raised broader governance issues— transparency and accountability, agenda setting and representation, donor power and grantees' autonomy—related to the enlarged role of private money in public conservation.
Arnold, R. (1999). Undue influence: Wealthy foundations, grant-driven environmental groups, and zealous bureaucrats that control your future. Bellevue, WA: Free Enterprise Press.
2.
Arnove, R. F. (1980). Introduction. In R. F. Arnove (Ed.), Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundation at home and abroad (pp. 1-23). Boston: G. K. Hall.
3.
Berholz, L. (1999). The future of foundation history: Suggestions for research and practice. In E. C. Lagemann (Ed.), Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities(pp. 357-375). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
4.
Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The US environmental movement from a critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
California Department of Finance. (2004). Population projections by race/ethnicity for California and its counties 2000-2050. Retrieved July 2004, from www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAPH/DRU_Publications/Projections/P1_PressRelease_5-04.pdf
6.
California Environmental Dialogue. (2003). Propositions 12 and 13: A status report. California Environmental Dialogue. Retrieved January 2002, from www.cedlink.org/pdf/prop12_13.pdf
7.
California Legislative Counsel. (2004). AB 1701 Assembly Bill—Bill analysis. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.gov./pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab1701.1750/ab_1701_cfa_20040824_23
8.
Carlson, N. (2000). Enlightened investment or excessive intrusion?Grantsmanship Center Magazine, (Fall), 21–23.
9.
Colwell, M. A. C. (1993). Private foundations and public policy: The political role of philanthropy. New York: Garland.
10.
Covington, S. (1997). Moving a public policy agenda: The strategic philanthropy of conservative foundations. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
11.
Dowie, M. (2001). American foundations: An investigative history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Doyle, M. (2003, November 14). Land-preserving project takes a bow, Packard-backed effort active in Central Valley. Modesto Bee, p. B3-B3.
13.
Fox, S. (1981). John Muir and his legacy: The American conservation movement. Boston: Little, Brown.
14.
Frumpkin, P. (2003). Inside venture philanthropy. Society, 40(4), 7-15.
15.
Fulton, W. (1991). Guide to California planning. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.
16.
Gonzales, G. A. (2001). Corporate power and the environment: The political economy of US environmental policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
17.
Greene, S. G. (1994). Who's driving the environmental movement?Chronicle of Philanthropy, 6, 6-11
18.
Hart, J. (1973). Foundations and social activism: A critical view. In F. F. Heinmann (Ed.), The future of foundations(pp. 43-57). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
Hays, S. P. (1959). Conservation and the gospel of efficiency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
John, D. (2004). Civic environmentalism. In R. F. Durant, D. J. Fiorino, & R. O'Leary (Eds.), Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities (pp. 219-254). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Kanter, R. M., & Summers, D. V. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and a need for a multiple-constituency approach. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook(pp. 154-166). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
Katz, S. N. (2004, April 23). What does it mean to say that philanthropy is “effective”? The philanthropists' new clothes. Paper presented at the American Philosophical Annual Meeting Symposium: Effective Philanthropy, Philadelphia. Retrieved February 2005, from www.policydevelopment.org/proj._katz042304.htm
23.
League of Women Voters. (2000). Directory of California state propositions. Retrieved July 2004, from www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/state/prop
24.
League of Women Voters. (2002). Directory of California state propositions. Retrieved July 2004, from www.smartvoter.org/2000/03/07/ca/state/prop
25.
Lehmer, A. G. (1999). The foundations dilemma. Earth Island Journal, (Fall), 15-16.
26.
Letts, C., & Ryan, W. (2003). High engagement: What grantees say about power, performance, and money. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(1), 26-33.
27.
Letts, C., Ryan, W., & Grossman, A. (1997). Virtuous capital: What foundations can learn from venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review, 75 (March/April), 2-16.
28.
Packard Foundation. (2000). Conserving California landscapes: Mid-term report November 2000. Los Altos, CA: Author.
29.
Packard Foundation. (2003). Conserving California landscapes: Five-year report November 2003. Los Altos, CA: Author.
30.
Peterson Commission. (1970). Foundations, private giving, and public policy: Report and recommendations of the Commission on Foundations and Private Philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999). Philanthropy's new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 121-130.
32.
Press, D. (1999). Local open space preservation in California. In D. A. Mazmanian & E. Kraft (Eds.), Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy(pp. 153-183). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
Press, D. (2002). Saving open space: The politics of local preservation in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
Rimel, R. W. (1999). Strategic philanthropy: Pew's approach to matching needs with resources. Health Affairs, 18(3), 228-233.
35.
Roelofs, J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
36.
Rosenbaum, W. A. (2002). Environmental politics and policy (5th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
37.
Rosenbaum, W. A. (2003). Looking for high leverage: The changing context of foundation engagement in wetlands and habitat protection (The Center for Philanthropy and Public Policy Research Paper-15). Retrieved from at www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/philantrophy/research/publications/?id=230
38.
Sievers, B. (2001, November 16). If pigs had wings: The appeals and limits of venture philanthropy. Paper presented at the Waldemar A. Nielsen Issues in Philanthropy Seminar Series, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Retrieved February 2005, from http://cpnl.georgetown.edu/doc_pool/Nielsen0103Sievers.pdf
39.
Silva, J. F. (2002). California's natural resource programs: Where does the money come from and where does it go?Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from www.ppic.org/contents/pubs/R_702FSR.pdf
40.
Simon, J. G. (1973). Foundations and public controversy: An affirmative view. In F. F. Heinmann (Ed.), The future of foundations(pp. 58-100). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41.
Snow, D. P. (1992). Inside the environmental movement: Meeting the leadership challenge. Washington, DC: Island Press.
42.
Starr, K. (2004, January 4). Philanthropy: Foundation of a new kind of governance?Los Angeles Times, p. M3-M3.
43.
Stephens, J., & Ottaway, D. B. (2004, July 1). IRS toughens scrutiny of land gifts. The Washington Post, p. A01-A01.
44.
Wagner, L. (2002). The new donor: Creation or evolution?International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(4), 343-352.
45.
Whelan, D. (2003, February 6). Packard Foundation announces grant-making cuts of $50-million. Chronicle of Philanthropy, p. 11-11.
46.
Wing, W. G. (1973). Philanthropy and the environment: A report on the nature and extent of philanthropic activity in the environmental field. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.
