The Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation
Qualities the Foundation Looks for In Land Conservation Organizations it Supports
Bob Canace, Program Officer
Land Conservation Sector and Program Related Investments
The PCLB Foundation believes the conservation of open space and smart approaches to planning
and development are critical to the quality of life and to having vibrant communities. We
therefore make grants to organizations working to conserve land and promote smart growth in
New York’s Hudson River Valley region, and to a more limited extent in Connecticut. Priority is
given to conservation organizations that work directly and strategically to create or connect key
corridors of open space, provide the public with meaningful outdoor experien ces, and preserve
productive farmland, as well as to a select group of organizations whose work has a direct
impact upon the success of these efforts through advocacy, training, and other forms of
support.
We also make Program Related Investments in the form of low-interest, short- and long-term
loans to conservation organizations to acquire land and conservation easements. Loans are
available to current grantees in New York and on a case -by-case basis in Connecticut.
Applications are invited within the Foundation’s scheduled grant cycles, although special
circumstances may warrant an off-cycle loan.
Current Foundation Criteria for Selecting Grantees
The Foundation supports a total of 24 grantees in its Land Conservation Sector, 19 of which are land
trusts carrying out the basic work of conserving land, while the other 5 organizations are involved in
supporting these efforts through advocacy and/or educating the public about the importance of
conservation. The following criteria describe the types of organizations that the Foundation is willing to
support:
 Local conservation organizations active in the Hudson River Valley and Connecticut.
 Key organizations making the most progress in the Hudson River Valley and Connecticut.
 National and global organizations which are active in the Hudson River Valley and Connecticut.
 Organizations that support and advocate for the work of conservation groups.
Common Elements of Effective Grantees
Foundations like to support groups that help the foundation advance is stated mission. Among the many
land conservation organizations within the geographic region supported by the Foundation some may
be considered to be more effective than others. There are some organizational elements common to the
grantees who are most effective and who the Foundation has chosen to support. These can generally
be defined as organizations that have a history of success, are currently active, adapt to change, are
expanding programs, and are forward looking. There appear to be some basic elements that these
highly effective land conservation organizations have in common:
 Dynamic Leadership: Effective organizations respond to the experience, charisma, organizational
skills, and vision of a dynamic leader. The leader may or may not have been in place for a long time,
but typically has extensive experience in the land conservation field. Leaders of effective land
conservation organizations are typically full-time professionals employed by the organization, place
significant emphasis on strategic planning, look for opportunities to forge partnerships with other
organizations, and have the ability to clearly define their organization’s purpose and direction.
 Critical Staff: In addition to an Executive Director, effective land conservation organizations appear
to have the following essential staff in place, usually but not necessarily, on a full-time basis: (1)
1




Administrator; (2) Development/Outreach Director; (3) Land Protection Specialist; (4) Land Steward;
(5) Program Coordinator. These organizations make effective use of interns and volunteers to assist
these critical staff members and the board.
Fluid and Growing Board of Directors: Although there is no common formula, the organizations that
continue to progress toward their primary mission adapt to changing circumstances and continue to
evaluate the composition of their Board relative to their needs and opportunities. Most have
emphasized their concerted efforts to diversify their Boards, adding individuals with keys skills in
areas of perceived need or deficiency. Many have instituted Board succession policies to bring “new
blood” to the Board on a regular basis and avoid “founder’s syndrome,” wherein Board members
may resist change. In addition, many of the more effective organizations have increasingly assigned
Board members to specific program needs or linked them with volunteers or interns to increase
vertical communication within the organization.
Active Partnerships: The more effective organizations actively seek and maintain partners, and
understand their respective roles. An organization’s reach is limited by its mission statement,
internal policies, resources, and priorities. Forging partnerships can frequently overcome such
shortcomings by expanding contacts, funding opportunities, and stewardship possibilities, as well as
creating a stronger political base. The degree to which grantees interact to achieve their individual
goals has been one of the more encouraging findings from site visit interviews.
Optimism and Adaptability: Although all land conservation organizations are cognizant of the
challenging economic environment in which they are currently operating, the more effective
organizations are actively seeking alternatives to continue to accomplish their mission and expand
programs. They continue to make progress toward preserving land by taking advantage of available
resources, such as federal funds and select foundation funds, and identifying landowners willing to
consider full or partial donation of land and easements. They have also recognized popular trends
such as an increasing demand for local food, interest in agri-tourism, and interest and need for
outdoor education to expand their base of support.
Sense of Professional Responsibility: The more highly evolved land conservation organizations have
embraced Land Trust Alliance Accreditation and land stewardship. Not all grantees have achieved
accreditation, but several of those that have not have made a conscious effort to obtain the
resources needed and are going through the process. Each has pointed to some benefit(s) brought
about simply by pursuing accreditation, whether or not it has yet been achieved. Responsible land
stewardship is valued and carried out by the more progressive organizations. Concerted efforts
have been made to add stewardship staff, give land stewards the tools and help they need to be
effective (volunteers, Board members, and equipment), and raise stewardship endowments to
realistic levels to carry out annual monitoring of easements and provide for easement defense.
Defining Success
PCLB’s grantees define success for themselves and their colleagues in several ways. Most of these
definitions are subjective, but they can be assessed qualitatively. Based on conversations with grantees
the following appear to be common ways organizations describe what they consider successful
outcomes:
 Land Protection: Acquiring quality and interconnected open space and farmland and saving land in
danger of development.
 Smart Growth: Towns and counties direct developers to land conservation organization prior to the
submission of development plans. Towns rely on conservation organizations to shape their open
space and farmland preservation plans and zoning.
 Financial Resources: The state protects funding for open space and farmland preservation from
being reprogrammed into the general treasury, increases funding to clear out the backlog of
2


projects, and solves the legal bottleneck that slows projects down. The process by which towns and
counties can establish community preservation funds is modified by the state to give more local
control to local funding, and towns and counties move to make these funds available. The
Foundation continues to provide general support to allow flexibility and loans to facilitate closings.
Farm Economy: The land conservation community becomes organized around a central program
concept to make land affordable to young farmers and continues to help promote farm markets.
Partnerships: Conservation organizations continue to take advantage of the cooperative
relationships they’ve built over the years to orchestrate projects using the unique capabilities of
diverse organizations with common interests, assist smaller organizations through shared services,
and continue to present a unified voice in Albany and Washington.
Measuring Success
Being able to quantify some or all of the above goals would facilitate the Foundation’s ability to assess
both the absolute and relative performance of land conservation grantees, which would in turn provide
a firm footing on which to base decisions on who to fund and relative funding amounts. Some caution is
warranted in attempting to quantify progress in the land conservation field. It is important to
emphasize quality over quantity. For example, a simple metric that could be applied is how many acres
each organization preserves each year. But the conservation value of land is important to these
organizations, so one needs to tie performance measures to organizational missions and examine the
importance of individual projects to past accomplishments and complimentary goals, such as smart
growth. Another reality is that factors beyond the organizations’ control greatly affect their ability to
bring projects to closing. Examples include unforeseen issues with survey, title, family matters, political
winds, and the availability of funding. These factors notwithstanding, measures such as how many
landowners are solicited each year, how many projects are in the “pipeline” (actively being appraised,
surveyed, assessed and negotiated), and how many are prepared to close would constitute fair metrics.
3