Transformational Service and Action Learning:

The Sustainability of Civic Engagement

Diane M. Kimoto
Grand Valley State University

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to introduce the Foundation Resource Outline
(FRO), based on the literatures of transformational service and action learning, as
a tool that helps practitioners and academics determine the financial solvency of
service agencies. Originally developed by the author for an undergraduate grant-
writing course, the FRO establishes a common set of questions through which
organizations and students can articulate their commitment to the financial
transparency of civic engagement. It delineates baseline information necessary for
public service organizations to consider when assessing their ability to garner funds
in support of their missions. Over time and through word of mouth, new and
established community organizations have come to employ the FRO in building
their monetary resources and developing rewarding service-learning opportunities
for students.

The role of public service (e.g., government, nonprofit, and health organizations)
is changing. “Concerns about the condition of America’s civic climate are growing”
as faith in the administration of financial systems “that presumably enable and
protect these beliefs is declining sharply” (King & Zanetti, 2005, p. 19). The
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA;
2010) and the Independent Sector (2010a) have also recognized the growing
demand for economic transparency and urged their members to seek new ways
of preparing individuals to better serve their communities in the workplace of
the 21st century. In creating alternative methods of learning to address these
fiscal challenges, models that create “some larger sense of a common good” are
required (King & Zanetti, 2005, pp. 2–3).
The purpose of this article is to introduce the Foundation Resource
Outline (FRO), based on the literatures of transformational service and action
learning, as a tool that helps practitioners and academics determine the
financial solvency of service agencies. Originally developed by the author for
an undergraduate grant-writing course, the FRO establishes a common set of
questions through which organizations and students can articulate their

JPAE,
17(1), 27–43 Journal of Public Affairs Education 27
Transformational Service and Action Learning

commitment to the financial transparency of civic engagement. It delineates

baseline information necessary for public service organizations to consider
when assessing their ability to garner funds in support of their missions.
Over time and through word of mouth, new and established community
organizations have come to employ the FRO in building their monetary resources
and developing rewarding service-learning opportunities for students. Before
moving on to a detailed explanation of the FRO, it is imperative that the reader
gain a better understanding of the theoretical tenets underlying its framework.

Review of Pertinent Literature

This section of the article explains why the literatures of transformational
service and action learning are fundamental in the creation of the FRO. It begins
by briefly defining the theoretical concept of transformational service, which
highlights a need for educational tools that assist public servants in working with
their constituents and clients. It proceeds to the literature on action learning,
which addresses how performance improvement is based on real-world challenges
and successes, not imaginary or simulated circumstances. Finally, the section
concludes by discussing how a shared reliance on reflection, co-facilitation, and
communication connects the literatures of transformational service and action
learning into a rationale for the FRO.

Transformational Service
Transformational service advocates that public service depends on both expertise
and experience. It attempts to alter the prevailing viewpoint that one mode of
administration, be it through expertise or experience, is superior to the other.
For example, novice public servants who proceed directly from undergraduate to
graduate education have the book smarts associated with the conditions laid out
in a textbook, but no understanding of how to deal with unforeseen circumstances
that happen on a daily basis. Transformational service attempts to combine
“technical proficiency with . . . the wisdom gained from common sense and
personalized observations” (Zanetti, 1998, p. 112). The ability to see oneself and
others without being overly critical allows public servants to communicate within
and as part of their communities. These are critical assets for a public servant who
assumes the role of facilitator in developing the skills and perspectives of citizens
who, in turn, help generate alternatives for addressing the challenges of today
and tomorrow. As such, “Public servants walk a fine line—they are citizens, yet
still accountable to the citizenry” (King & Zanetti, 2005, p. 119).

Action Learning
Action learning is a process predicated upon an ability to question past
knowledge, listen to others, and implement solutions with actual consequences.
It “emphasizes questions and reflection above statements and opinions” and has a

28 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

“unique and amazing power to simultaneously solve difficult challenges” because

people resolve their problems and learn by doing (Marquardt, 2004, p. 28).
Action learning is vastly different from the role-plays or case studies conducted
in classrooms where students lack “the power to take action themselves or be
assured that their recommendations will be implemented” (Marquardt, 2004, p.
28). It is further distinguished from other styles of training by a decision-making
process that is based on the input from group members who come from diverse
backgrounds and realms of experiences and the assistance of a coach or facilitator.
The role of the facilitator is to promote and encourage opportunities for
advancement without dominating the process. Within academia, the facilitation
is conducted by a teacher whereas in public service, the administrator assumes
the facilitation role. In both cases, communication is critical in delivering evidence
that changes have been made through the attainment of organizational goals
reflective of stakeholders’ needs.

Bridging Transformational Service With Action Learning

According to King and Zanetti (2005), good theory happens at the “nexus
of the real and the ideal” (p. xix). One realization of this nexus occurs when
transformational service and action learning are combined. As the following section
details, it is a shared reliance on reflection, co-facilitation, and communication that
aligns these two theoretical approaches and affords insights into the complexities
of public service.

Reflection.
Both transformational service and action theory concur that everyone has
a role to play in building a healthier, more vibrant community and that no one
person, organization, or sector can do it alone. Community partnerships are
a primary means of bringing people and organizations together to create the
conditions that foster dynamic administrative systems. While transformational
service facilitates the identification of opportunities, takes concrete steps to solve
problems, and attempts to sustain long-term, community-wide visions, action
theory fosters the ability to see a needed service, plan and attract funding, and
implement programs with measurable outcomes. By relying upon the creativ-
ity, hard work, and perseverance of team members (i.e., action learning) and the
breadth of their community coalitions (i.e., transformational service), utilization
of the FRO helps to secure fiscal responsibility.

Co-Facilitation.
Through periods of giving and taking in face-to-face encounters, online
discussions, and peer evaluations when clarifying the FRO, newly formed teams
(i.e., action learning) of local partners (i.e., transformational service) engage in
what is called co-facilitation. The emphasis during this process is placed on the

Journal of Public Affairs Education 29

Transformational Service and Action Learning

commitment of members to secure funds. The mutual respect that transformational

service and action theory place on the experiences of individuals allows students
and organizations to accomplish three things: (a) promote involvement and
interaction toward learning; (b) identify a list of common concerns regarding the
materials shared with one another during the grant-writing experience; and
(c) instruct individuals on how to give and take constructive criticism. These
aspects of co-facilitation enable citizens to develop a long-term dedication to
public service.

Communication.
The construction of a grant, as part of a larger fund approach, reaffirms the
connection between transformational service and action learning and allows
student-organizational teams to fulfill three goals. First, making a grant increases
students’ command and usage of key management functions, such as planning,
organizing, and budgeting, in creating ongoing systems of learning, where
students speak the language of productivity. Second, it signifies the maturation of
students into “wise consumers” who are capable of complimenting their volunteer
involvement with civic commitment to public service. Third, it discloses a
realization that sustainable systems require an intricate relationship between writing
grants, board relations, and fund development. In each of these cases, communica-
tion becomes the critical tool that promotes a balance between individual creativity
(i.e., crafting multiple messages for diverse audiences) and organizational constraint
(i.e., employing the financial limits of consistent information).
Since its inception, the FRO has been employed as a bridge between the
worlds of experience (i.e., organization) and expertise (i.e., students). It is hoped
that usage of this tool will result in fund development strategies that enhance (a)
an appreciation of the human experience as an act of social usefulness, (b) the
empowerment of students and their organizational partners to craft inventive
means for generating resources, and (c) the collective responsibilities associated
with public accountability. Therefore, as we progress into a discussion of how the
Koina Center has employed the FRO, it is imperative to review how this learning
tool provides a level playing field from which to frame a good fund proposal.

The Koina Center: A Case Study in Using the Foundation

Resource Outline
The partnership between universities and community organizations has long
been a staple of service-learning experiences. In the case of the FRO, which was
originally introduced during the 2004–2005 academic year, this process has
undergone multiple revisions in regards to content and application. Through
the feedback from students, partner organizations, conference participants, and
local professionals, the document has been utilized as a tool in (a) helping to
build the financial sustainability of institutions committed to public service and

30 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

(b) endorsing the teachings of transformational service and action learning. This
section highlights the type of facilitated discussion that a teacher or administrator
could provide for team members as they embark on their new journey, in this
case with the Koina Center. The reader should also be reminded that there is no
singular manner of approaching the utilization of the FRO. Instead, its application
is built on the unique talents of its participants (e.g., expertise and experience).

The Foundation Resource Outline

The FRO, shown in its original form in Appendix A, is based on materials
drawn from general readings from the Council on Michigan Foundations
(2004), the Independent Sector (2005), and the Better Business Bureau Wise
Giving Alliance (2003). A simple way of thinking about the FRO is as a
“handy-dandy cheat sheet” that assists individuals from various perspectives
and experiences as they discuss an organization’s financial status. For example,
public service agencies do not want to overwhelm students with a plethora of
materials, but they don’t want to seem unprepared. Students, who are typically
in their junior or senior years, may be unfamiliar with the day-to-day challenges
of strategic plans, financial management, and accountability. By proceeding
through a series of questions that cover the areas of (a) organizational name
and mission, (b) main problem or challenge to be addressed, (c) proposed solutions
or alternatives, (d) organizational advantage, (e) fund development strategies
or plans, and (e) pertinent documents, the FRO provides a level playing field
from which to frame a quality fund proposal.
At first, the FRO is given to potential organizational partners for their
review. In going over the items they will need to share with students, each
organization must determine whether it is ready to proceed and if it has time
to devote to its student partners. Students are also given the FRO before the
start of the course to become familiar with the types of materials they will be
utilizing during the semester. Based on what they read and through additional
investigation of website materials, students determine their affinity toward one
organization versus another. At this point the students, who work in groups
of 3–4 members, and their organizational liaisons meet face-to-face to begin
the process of fund grantsmanship wherein the FRO comes alive for them
in translating transformational service and action learning into sustainable
systems for civic engagement.
It should be noted that most organizations do not complete every item
on the FRO, and this is perfectly acceptable. The questions or areas left
unanswered merely suggest preliminary topics for dialogue. In addition, the
FRO should be considered a “living” document in that as new ideas and
alternatives are generated, the FRO also reflects these progressions. The key in
utilizing the FRO is to remember that its purpose is to serve as a springboard
in creating a better future.

Journal of Public Affairs Education 31

Transformational Service and Action Learning

The Koina Center

During the winter of 2009, the Koina Center was a new organization
that had recently submitted its materials to the Internal Revenue Service for
recognition as a public charity. The Koina Center’s purpose was to function as
a separate, sustainability initiative promoting Lutheran education, religion, and
collaboration in the West Michigan area. The organization contacted a regional
university in the hopes of partnering with a professor, a class, or a program as
it developed its ability to generate sustainable funds. Upon hearing about this
wonderful opportunity, communications between the executive director, Krista
Kurth, and myself were initiated on behalf of forming a service-learning experience
for grant-writing students.
The Koina Center was selected for representation in this article for several
reasons. First, as a start-up organization, the Koina Center saw the utility of
co-facilitation as an organizational advantage. Following the adage that “two
heads are better than one,” the executive director demonstrated a willingness to
serve as a liaison in meeting with students, coming to the class, and opening
her doors for their input. Second, the Koina Center’s FRO is incomplete. As
mentioned previously, there is no correct way to provide information on the
FRO, nor is the lack of data in some areas a hindrance for partnership. The
organization’s collaborative over competitive philosophy made it noteworthy.
Third, the selection of a faith-based organizational partner signals the long-standing
importance of this area of the nonprofit sector and represents an ever-increasing
belief in its ability to fill the service gap generated by the government.
Before continuing, readers should take the time to review the Koina Center’s
FRO as presented in Appendix B. Initially, the reader will find that some items,
or questions, have not been completed by the Koina Center. Rather than regarding
this missing information as a hindrance for advancement, the reader is encouraged
to think of these areas as works in progress or starting points for discussion with
team members. The comments provided next reflect one possible co-facilitation
between team members as they move toward the development of a fund
sustainability program.

Organizational Name and Mission.

On the surface, the naming of an organization and its defining of a mission
would appear quite simple and clear-cut. However, a name may suggest brand
recognition, community partnerships, or even a propensity for or against
collaboration through the use of particular logos and spokespeople. This is exactly
what happens with the Koina Center; its name uses scripture to emphasize the
importance of sharing for the mutual benefit of others over the individual. Using
verbiage that signals partnership and commonality, the name and mission “provide
pathways for connecting people who care with causes that matter for now and in
the future” by “convening/calling people together, helping them collaborate for the

32 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

common good” (see Appendix B). The usage of the words convene, collaborate, and
contribute can easily be associated with the foundations of transformational service
and action learning, where convene = reflection, collaborate = co-facilitation, and
contribute = communication. Coupling these connections with the Koina Center’s (a)
ability to reflect on present and future situations, (b) willingness to be inclusive, and
(c) comfort level in sharing information signifies an astute self-awareness.
The purpose of revisiting the first question on the FRO is not to ask
organizations to change these statements, but to encourage an awareness on
their part that impressions may be associated with the language they use to
define their (a) ability to reflect on present and future situations, (b) willingness
to be inclusive or exclusive, and (c) comfort level in communicating and
sharing information with others.

Main Problem or Challenge.

When identifying the problems or challenges that an organization is facing,
it is important to consider who is framing the problem, because not everyone
“has an equal say in making interpretations count” (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993,
p. 40). According to the models of transformational service and action learning,
the roles of constituent and client input (experience) should be as important as
those of administrators (expertise). Upon reviewing the second question from
the FRO, the team needs to determine whether clients and administrators are
listening to one another; for only through dialogue are “equitable opportunities
to speak” ensured for all interested parties (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993, p. 41).
The main problem or challenge confronting the Koina Center is twofold.
Initially, the Koina Center needs to position itself as an alternative to other
parochial instruction (e.g., Christian Reformed and Catholic) by its “reputation
for excellent academic education as well as sound Lutheran doctrine,” which
is supported by The Nation’s Report Card (see Appendix B). Additionally, the
Koina Center is confronted with a lack of collaboration. Instead of employing
one source to secure funds for the individual schools and congregations, each
school has separately been approaching the same funding stream. By emphasizing
reflective listening, the ensuing dialogue crystallizes the root problem or challenge
for the Koina Center, which occurs “when many organizations are attempting
to raise funds at the same time, it creates tension between organizations and
amongst potential donors. There is a scarcity mentality that does not foster an
atmosphere of working together” (see Appendix B).

Proposed Solutions.
This section of the FRO is concerned with the writing of objectives that
result in measurable outcomes that are also cost effective. Due to the demand
for transparency and accountability by public and private funders, organizations
must ascertain new ways for providing services while still preserving relationships

Journal of Public Affairs Education 33

Transformational Service and Action Learning

while still preserving relationships where top-down decision making and problem
solving no longer limit the possibilities of dialogue.
Through the same distinctive ability to listen, the Koina Center has realized
that its economic viability is based on focusing on “problem solving vs. gift getting
by creating a collaborative environment not a competitive environment” (see
Appendix B). In addition, the center is committed “to create a dedicated support
organization that will serve as a fund development/stewardship resource to all
Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) based education ministries in the
greater Grand Rapids, MI area” (see Appendix B). In recognizing “the responsibility
of stewarding community resources wisely and judiciously, adhering to the highest
ethical standards,” and carrying “out a strategic grant making program that is
flexible, visionary, and inclusive,” the Koina Center has established the basis for
subsequent action (see Appendix B). All that remains is to translate these goals
into measurable objectives and outcomes, a process that in itself is a wonderful
chance for the entire team to learn and work together.

Organizational Advantage.
By taking the time to grasp the importance of what each public service entity
contributes to the sustainability of civic engagement, the FRO asks members to
consider why their organization is the best choice for fulfilling the community’s
need, and if they have a track record to substantiate such claims. When considering
newer organizations that have yet to develop a track record of measurable
outcomes, consideration rests upon the recognition given to staff, donors, or
community-wide connections and partnerships.
When the Koina Center submitted its initial FRO, the organization had not yet
attained its legal status as a public charity. Nonetheless, it had already established itself
as a geographic center for West Michigan Lutherans and touted its commitment
to “the growth of a permanent charitable endowment . . . to build a better
community” (see Appendix B). The center hopes that inclusion of its work in
academic presentations and articles will extend its recognition beyond the region
to national funders and serve as a model for other institutions. In turn, the openness
afforded by the executive director to students and myself as the teacher/facilitator is
testament to the center’s long-term commitment to service learning. From these
three areas, the organizational advantage of the Koina Center is still to be written.

Fund Development or Business Plan.

“The environments in which all organizations exist vary in both character
and complexity” (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993, p. 7). The difficulty arises when
agencies fail to create a well-thought-out system for generating and sustaining
financial resources. Therefore, organizations must ensure that all funding options
(a) consider the long-term payoff and benefit to clients and constituents and (b)
balance estimated expenditures with secured and anticipated revenues.

34 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

The Koina Center is developing a sound financial management agenda

through diversification (e.g., grants, individual donations, membership dues, the
use of an outside consultant, and the employment of in-kind/donated services).
Rather than compete with nationally recognized organizations with established
records of measurable outcomes, the center has opted for local resources and
smaller sums of funds where their recognition could be more easily leveraged.
For example, the board of directors has transferred the contracted efforts of Mr.
Scott Eckart “as a consultant on the capital campaign for the high school” to the
Koina Center, where his skills would essentially “help everyone” (see Appendix
B). As the Koina Center concentrates on these resources, the student partners
from future grant-writing courses will research avenues for funding outside the
region through the online Foundation Directory database (i.e., leading source of
information on U.S. grantmakers and their grantmaking activities; Foundation
Directory, 2010).

Organizational Documents.
Of all the sections of the FRO, this is the most direct. Basically, the team
reviews current documents—such as business or strategic plans, Form 990s (i.e.,
the information that most public charities are required by law to submit annually
to the IRS; GuideStar, 2010), past grants, assessment protocols, board of directors,
and client testimonials—to determine what additional information can be
gleaned and then used toward the writing of better grant proposals and the
realization of greater fiscal sustainability. When these resources are not available
to an organization, particularly a newer one, team members can help that
organization attain and complete these records as part of their service-learning
experience. The remainder of this section clarifies the usage of the items provided
by the Koina Center.
Although only three documents were provided for this section (e.g., a 2007
cash flow statement, a past grant, and the board of directors list), they reveal a
wealth of potential for building unique relationships within the larger community
(e.g., West Michigan–Grand Rapids area and the LCMS). For example, news of an
upcoming strategic planning meeting allows the board of directors to review the
establishment of management strategies, revisit challenges and strengths, and
consider pending needs for greater board education in relation to existing cash flows.
Examination of the Church Extension Fund (CEF) grant highlights the center’s
ability to secure funds with measurable outcomes and allows team members to get
a better grasp of what the organization is doing. While the enthusiasm to seek
“unlimited” funds reflects the passion of a younger nonprofit, it is carefully balanced
by sound management principles (e.g., smaller grants and community buy-in)
and guidance from committed board members, who serve simultaneously as
administrators and parents. There is no doubt that as the Koina Center grows and
prospers, so will the wealth of information embedded within these documents.

Journal of Public Affairs Education 35

Transformational Service and Action Learning

Follow-up
When considering the merits of the FRO in helping to sustain organizations
dedicated to civic engagement and public service, the results must be inspected
on two levels: for the Koina Center specifically and for students in general. Since
January 2009, the Koina Center has expanded its grant-seeking endeavors to a
total of 11 submissions seeking $183,500. Of these proposals, three have been
funded with a dollar value of $16,000 toward school and ministry promotion
and development (e.g., training seminars and donor solicitation); still pending
is another $60,000 for technology enhancement for the center and elementary,
middle, and high schools. In addition to the grants monies just delineated,
the Koina Center is implementing the proposed solutions for achieving fund
diversification as outlined in its FRO through the use of donors, online donations,
and membership dues (see Appendix B).
During the past year and a half, a sluggish U.S. economic growth has translated
into a decline in foundational support (Independent Sector, 2010b). While
some public service agencies might have become disillusioned by these untimely
events, the Koina Center utilized this time to re-strategize the cost effectiveness
of its fiscal decision making. For example, to move past the $10,000 threshold
for single grant awards, the Koina Center has begun to leverage the larger sums
desired, such as $50,000 or more, into several smaller (e.g., $20,000 + $20,000 +
$10,000 = $50,000) or matching grants (i.e., the funding from one grant source
is used as an enticement to draw in other funders and reduce the expenditure
from any sole funder). This tactic allows the center to gain greater visibility
in the grantmaking world while building novel collaborations amid potential
funders. For the Koina Center, the FRO has been a successful tool in planning
and securing the necessary funds for ongoing projects and endeavors.
While the FRO helps public service agencies address their concerns for fiscal
solvency, it also facilitates the service-learning experiences of students. In particular,
it focuses students’ attention on the following three learning challenges. First,
grant writing as part of a larger funding agenda is hard work, especially when
translating objectives into measurable outcomes. This phase of the grant-writing
process is awkward because students are required to understand the organization’s
needs and strengths, its community’s needs, and the goals of potential funders.
This kind of thinking forces students beyond the passion for a program or mission
into (a) quantifying the number of individuals or systems to be affected, (b)
outlining an efficient manner or method for accomplishing anticipated outcomes,
and (c) utilizing evaluation protocols to substantiate success. Second, spending
time to devise a strategy or plan of action for the selection of and approach to
foundations is critical in the advancement of the organization’s goals. For example,
deciding when to seek matching grants versus single grants and determining
whether to approach local or national funders can mean all the difference to an
agency’s survival. Third, it is imperative to call the right partners to the table

36 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

in order to build mutual assets. Unless an organization can demonstrate how it

works in concert with other agencies to remedy community needs, it will never
be able to sustain itself because foundations, corporate giving programs, and
government monies all require collaboration. Therefore, the use of the FRO
continues to foster the service learning of students, but it also upholds a legacy
of civic engagement and continues the promotion of social change for students,
organizations, and their communities.

Conclusions
As mentioned in the introduction, concern about the administration of
financial systems governing public service organizations is growing. Coinciding
with this concern is a realization that the administrators of such systems “cannot
simply observe the world, but instead continually interact with and influence it”
(King & Zanetti, 2005, pp. x–xi). Consequently, this article is relevant to the
professional development, teaching, and scholarship of practitioners and academics
who (a) seek to combine the knowledge of expertise with the wisdom of common
sense and/or (b) focus on the fiscal challenges of public service in the 21st century.
Underlying the FRO is the pivotal role of communication in promoting the
teaching of social responsibility and civic engagement. Vigoda (2003) suggests
that the main challenge in the coming years is “a new vitalized administrative
generation that is interdisciplinary in nature and tightly bounded together with
modern participatory democracy” (p. 18). The translation of the goals and
aspirations of public service organizations into economic realities serves as
an untapped reservoir in promoting an educational framework that signals the
financial collaboration between government, private industry, and nonprofits to
speak on behalf of programs and missions that might otherwise be lost.

References
Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. (2003). Standards for charity accountability. Retrieved
from http://www.bbb.org/us/Charity-Standards/

Council on Michigan Foundations. (2004). Common grant application form. Retrieved from http://
www.michiganfoundations.org/s_cmf/bin.asp?CID=2528&DID=10304&DOC=FILE.DOC

Eisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, H. L., Jr. (1993), Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and
constraint. New York: St. Martin’s.

Foundation Directory. (2010). Grantmakers. Retrieved from http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/

fundingsources/fdo.html

GuideStar. (2010). What is the form 990? Retrieved from http://www2.guidestar.org/rxg/help/faqs/

form-990/index.aspx#faq1942

Journal of Public Affairs Education 37

Transformational Service and Action Learning

Independent Sector. (2005, June). Panel on the nonprofit sector. A final report to Congress and the
nonprofit sector. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.independentsector.org/
uploads/Accountability_Documents/Panel_Final_Report.pdf

———. (2010a). Statement of IS President and CEO Diana Aviv on the nonprofit sector and community
solutions act of 2010. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://independent sector.org/
statement_on_nonprofit_act_20100616?lh_print=1

———. (2010b). The sector’s economic impact. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.
independentsector.org/economic_role

King, C. S., & Zanetti, L. A. (2005). Transformational public service: Portraits of theory in practice.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Marquardt, M. J. (2004). Action learning: A powerful new training tool for developing individuals, teams,
and organizations. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~bygeorge/021804/actionlearning.html

National Association for Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. (2010). NASPAA accreditation
standards. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/NS/naspaastandards.asp

Vigoda, E. (2003). Rethinking the identity of public administration: Interdisciplinary reflections and
thoughts on managerial reconstruction. Public Administration & Management: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 8, 1–22.

Zanetti, L. A. (1998). At the nexus of state and civil society: The transformative practice of public
administration. In C. S. King & C. Stivers (Eds.), Government is us: Public administration in an
anti-government era (pp. 102–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Diane M. Kimoto is an Associate Professor in Grand Valley State University’s

School of Public, Nonprofit, and Health Administration. Dr. Kimoto earned her
Ph.D. from the University of Southern California with emphases in interpersonal
and organizational communications. Her research and publishing interests combine
communication and pedagogic theory towards identifying the underlying
approaches that guide the co-operative experience between teachers and students
in promoting excellence in learning. She is currently working on a textbook,
Communicating Public Service, which uses experiential learning to prepare students
for intelligent participation in public dialogues that consider the issues of humane
living and responsible action in local, national, and global communities.

38 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

Appendix A
Foundation Resource Outline

Project Name (if applicable):

Directions: Thank you for taking the time to fill out the Foundation Resource
Outline. The information that you provide will be shared with potential group
members who are students from the PA 335 Grantwriting course. It is our hope
that the information generated will help form the basis for a sound fund devel-
opment plan. Please feel free to use as much space as needed.
1. What is your organization’s name? What is their mission?
2. What is the main problem or challenge that the organization is address-
ing? Basically, what need or gap is going unfulfilled in the community? It is
important that you find well-chosen statistics that portray the human side
of the community problem and exhibit geographic sensitivity (i.e., why the
need is greater here than elsewhere).
3. What solution is the organization suggesting for resolving this community
need? In addition, generate a description of the approach that the organiza-
tion hopes to employ in resolving the problem/need.
a. What are the organization’s goals (i.e., broadly defined) for this solution?
b. What measurable objectives (i.e., observable and capable of being docu-
mented) have been or could be delineated for this solution?
c. Has the organization tracked any measurable outcomes related to their
solution(s)? If so, what kind or type (e.g., quantitative or qualitative)?
For example, how many individuals have registered to vote (output) and a
follow-up of how many actually voted in a subsequent election (outcome)?
d. What will be the short-, intermediate-, and/or long-term impacts from
this program and its commitment to community needs?
4. What makes your organization the best choice or option for fulfilling the
community’s need? Here is where you will talk about the uniqueness of your
organization and a few of its successes or landmarks.
5. Fund Development Strategy/Plan:
a. What is the total amount of funds sought for this solution?
b. How much has been secured thus far?
(1) From fundraising? Please list events and amounts for each.
(2) From corporate sponsorship? Please list sponsors and amount from each.
(3) From grant funds (e.g., public and private)? Which were approached
and why? Be sure to list both present/potential funders and amount
from each.
(4) From in-kind and/or donated services? Please list sources and
amount from each.
(5) If the organization has not approached any funders yet, it will be
your responsibility to select three for them: one primary and two

Journal of Public Affairs Education 39

Transformational Service and Action Learning

that could we used for sustainability or as back-ups. Note: Be sure to

provide your rationale as to why each of these foundations is appro-
priate
c. Total estimated expenditure?
d. Total estimated revenue, if any?
e. What ongoing fund development strategies have been generated by the
organization to sustain their solution(s)? If none have been created, you
will need to create them.
6. Items to get from the organization:
a. Most recent strategic plan and/or business plan
b. Financial documents: (a) Form 990, (b) budget estimates related to the
proposal (e.g., cost estimates, overhead costs, donated goods and servic-
es, etc.), (c) balance sheets, (d) operating statements, and (e) statements
of cash flow
c. Copy of past grants (funded and/or unfunded)
d. Past evaluation or assessment protocols to be incorporated for the meth-
ods and evaluation sections of the grant (e.g., in-house and/or consultant
generated resources)
e. Information related to organizational background and history (e.g., what
are some of their successes and what makes them unique for their com-
munities?)
f. Copy of Board of Directors and their affiliations (e.g., work and do they
sit on other boards or foundations)
g. Client testimonials about the program/project, its need, importance in
their lives—if possible. If not, you might need to create such informa-
tion from research and data investigation.

40 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

Appendix B
Foundation Resource Outline

Project Name: None

1. What is your organization’s name? What is their mission? The Koina Center.
Koina comes from the Greek word Koinania—Koina means common as in be-
longing to all, sharing, mutual. All the believers were one in heart and mind. No
one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything
they had. Acts 4:32
Challenge: When many organizations are attempting to raise funds at the same
time it creates tension between organizations and amongst potential donors. There
is a scarcity mentality that does not foster an atmosphere of working together.
Solution: Focus on “problem solving” vs. “gift getting” by creating a collaborative
environment not a competitive environment.
Vision: To create a dedicated support organization that will serve as a fund devel-
opment/ stewardship resource to all Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS)
based education ministries in the greater Grand Rapids, MI area.
Mission: The Koina Center will provide pathways for connecting people who care
with causes that matter for now and in the future. The Koina Center will do this
by first convening people together, helping them collaborate for the common good,
and then seeing people contribute to those ministries they serve. (convene, collabo-
rate, contribute)
2. What is the main problem or challenge that the organization is address-
ing? Basically, what need or gap is going unfulfilled in the community? It is
important that you find well-chosen statistics that portray the human side
of the community problem and exhibit geographic sensitivity (i.e., why the
need is greater here than elsewhere). In the past several things have kept our
Lutheran schools strong: (a) our reputation for excellent academic education
as well as sound Lutheran doctrine has kept our classrooms full. (the academic
excellence is supported by The Nation’s Report Card: http://nces.ed.gov/nation-
sreportcard/pdf/studies/2006459.pdf ); (b) strong giving from congregations to
support the schools. Today, we are not the only “charity” in town. From a religious
denomination standpoint, we are also a minority in West MI. The Reformed
Church and the Catholic Church are both much larger than the Lutheran
Church in West MI; (c) Today, we have to “toot our own horn” to show people
that their children will get the best academic education and be at a doctrinally
sound school.
3. What solution is the organization suggesting for resolving this community
need? In addition, generate a description of the approach that the orga-
nization hopes to employ in resolving the problem/need. Marketing: (a)
Internal—presentations, newsletters, promotional material and external—me-
dia, on-line, printed materials; (b) outreach / education; (c) special events and

Journal of Public Affairs Education 41

Transformational Service and Action Learning

fundraising; (d) capital campaigns; (e) planned giving—setting up professional

resources such as Estate planners, attorneys, CPA’s—Available to church members
and remind people of options for donations to Lutheran Education through The
Koina Center; (f ) stewardship—fiscal responsibility—Time, Talent, Treasury;
(g) building community in all of our churches and schools—help everyone to
take ownership in our Lutheran Education System; and (h) scholarships—make
Lutheran Education available to more children.
a. What are the organization’s goals (i.e., broadly defined) for this solution?
Core Values
Donor Focus: to facilitate donors interests with program assistance that
makes giving easy, personally satisfying and effective. (Inclination model,
what am I inclined to do as a way for me to practice financial care?)
Catalyst: to be a neutral convener and facilitator, stimulating and pro-
moting collaborations among various organizations to accomplish com-
mon objectives.
Permanence: to encourage the growth of a permanent charitable endowment
to meet the Lutheran community’s changing needs for now and in the future.
Impact: to carry out a strategic grant making program that is flexible,
visionary and inclusive. (an extension of annual campaigns and capital
campaigns)
Partnerships: we seek relationships with professional advisors (attorneys,
accountants/CPA and financial planners), community leaders, non-profit
organizations and other foundations to exchange ideas, share informa-
tion and collaborate to build a better community.
Uniqueness: A single source for giving that connects people who care
with the Lutheran educational ministries they care about.
Integrity: we recognize the responsibility of stewarding community re-
sources wisely and judiciously, adhering to the highest ethical standards.
5. Fund Development:
a. What is the total amount of funds sought for this solution? Unlimited
b. How much has been secured thus far? From corporate sponsorship? West
Michigan Lutheran High School (WMLHS) From grant funds (e.g., public
and private)? Which were approached and why? Church Extension Fund
$10,000. They were approached because we knew that the funds would be
granted and we need the “seed” money to get things going.
...
e. What ongoing fund development strategies have been generated by the
organization to sustain their solution(s)? If none have been created, you
will need to create them. 1. WMLHS—At the last BoD meeting when
“The Koina Center” was established, the Board made a financial commit-
ment of the following: (a) Directly affects each school—$9,000 towards
advertising of our Lutheran Schools. This includes Grand Rapids Family

42 Journal of Public Affairs Education

 Transformational Service and Action Learning

and we will be looking at other avenues; (b) The high school had originally
contracted with Scott Eckart as a consultant on the capital campaign for the
high school and they modified that to utilize him with “The Koina Center”
to help everyone; and (c) They are paying for fees to set-up the organization
(i.e. IRS, State of MI, legal; 2. Grants; 3. Individual Donations; 4. Mem-
bership Dues?
6. Items to get from the organization:
a. Most recent strategic plan: Strategic planning session scheduled for 2/28/09.
b. Financial documents: Statements of cash flow 2007
c. Copy of past grants (funded and/or unfunded): Christian Extension Fund
f. Copy of Board of Directors and their affiliations (e.g., work and do they
sit on other boards or foundations): (a) Pastor Tom Meyer—President,
Pastor of St. Mark Lutheran Church & School, Kentwood, MI; (b) Mr.
Dwight Anderson—Vice President, Principal and Executive Director of
WMLHS, Kentwood, MI; (c) Ms. Krista Kurth—Secretary & Executive Di-
rector, The Koina Center, Parent of children at Our Savior Lutheran School;
and (d) Mr. Bryan Sinner—Treasurer, Parent of Children at St. Mark
Lutheran School and WMLHS

Journal of Public Affairs Education 43

Copyright of Journal of Public Affairs Education is the property of National Association of Schools of Public
Affairs & Administration and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.