































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 3, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Nathan Palardy, Assistant Professor of Policy - State and Local Government, University of Florida, 1087 McCarty Hall B, 

Gainesville FL 32603, n.palardy@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6396-3627 

2. Matthew Sowcik, Associate Professor of Leadership Development, University of Florida, 217 Rolfs Hall, Gainesville FL 

32603, sowcik@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5630-2281 
 

146 

 

Aligning Land Grant Leadership Programs with the Needs of 
Elected Officials through Extension: Perceptions, Priorities, 

and Participation among Florida County Commissioners 
 

N. Palardy 1, M. Sowcik 2 
 

 
Article History 
Received: April 28, 2023 
Accepted: August 10, 2023 
Published: September 10, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
leadership program evaluation; 
community leadership development; 
community capacity building; 
leadership education   

Abstract 
Addressing complex challenges has become the norm for local 
elected officials, and the need for skilled leadership at the local 
level has never been greater. County commissioners are not only 
tasked with day-to-day county management but must also make 
crucial decisions on issues such as pandemic response, rapid 
population growth, and natural disasters. The purpose of our study 
is to assess a university-based leadership development program 
for county commissioners, offered in collaboration between 
Extension at the University of Florida and the Florida Institute for 
County Government. We explore attitudes toward leadership 
programs among Florida county commissioners, show which 
competencies commissioners prioritize for leadership 
development, and identify potential barriers to participation. We 
find that county commissioners believe that leadership programs 
improve the effectiveness of leaders and the quality of local 
government. Additionally, we discover that the highest priority 
leadership competencies are strategic planning, communication, 
economic trends, conflict resolution, and critical thinking. Finally, 
our study shows that universities that partner with county 
government associations to offer leadership programs can create 
an important avenue for rural, resource-constrained counties to 
build the capacity of elected officials. 

mailto:n.palardy@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6396-3627
mailto:sowcik@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5630-2281


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   147 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Florida is home to 22 million people within its 67 counties, with conservative estimates 
suggesting that the state’s population will grow by 900 new citizens each day (Office of 
Economic & Demographic Research, 2019). Florida’s population continues to transition to urban 
areas, while at the same time wicked agricultural and environmental issues are emerging 
(Florida State University, 2010). For example, citrus greening, a plant disease introduced to 
Florida in 2005, is responsible for over $1 billion in annual damages and threatens the 
sustainability of the citrus industry in the region (Li et al., 2020).  
 
County commissioners are the front line of community leadership (McKee et al., 2016) and 
often “find themselves overwhelmed at the number and scope of decisions they must make 
and the criticism expressed by their constituency” (Rinehart & Smith, 1995, p. 2). Florida’s 
changing landscape necessitates that local leaders adapt to face new challenges and possess 
the capacity to lead their communities into the future. Leadership programs available through 
Extension at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF|IFAS) are 
essential for local government leaders to be knowledgeable, systems thinkers, and responsive 
to human and environmental issues that affect food, agricultural, and natural resources 
systems locally. 
 
As part of an ongoing evaluation of attitudes and access to leadership programs, we conducted 
a survey of county commissioners attending the Florida Association of Counties 2022 Legislative 
Conference. Our goals were to gauge attitudes toward leadership programs among Florida 
county commissioners, uncover which competencies commissioners would like to prioritize for 
development, and identify potential barriers to participation in the Institute for County 
Government (ICG) leadership programs. We also investigated access to the leadership programs 
among commissioners from rural, resource-constrained counties. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The conceptual framework for the study is based on the Targeting Outcomes of Program (TOP) 
Model (Rockwell & Bennett, 2004), provided in Figure 1, which was developed from Bennett’s 
Hierarchy (Bennett, 1975). In the TOP Model, the seven levels of Bennett’s Hierarchy inform 
program development and program performance. The TOP Model provided a robust 
framework to assess the evolving needs of commissioners and provided avenues to refine the 
leadership programs to address these needs. Specifically, the survey gathered information on 
the attitudes, skills, and aspirations of commissioners (TOP model level 3) and examined 
leadership program graduation data to examine participation (TOP model level 5). The use of 
the TOP Model was ideal to both gain the necessary feedback to create positive change and to 
provide data to share with other programs with similar objectives. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   148 
 

Figure 1 
  
The TOP Model (Rockwell & Bennett, 2004)

 
 
Partnership with the Institute for County Government 
In 1996, UF|IFAS Extension formed a partnership with the ICG, which aids county 
commissioners in their personal and professional development. The goals of leadership 
programs are threefold. First, the programs look to build leadership capacity. Next, these 
programs supply the skills to “initiate change and increase human capital” (McKee et al., 2016, 
p. 202). Finally, “these programs give participants an overview of other related issues such as 
the environment, interpersonal relationships, the political system, and urban interface” 
(McKee, et al., 2016, p. 202). Currently, the ICG and UF|IFAS Extension offer three programs:  
• The Certified County Commissioner program (CCC)— “is a voluntary program of study 

designed for county commissioners to learn information and enhance skills relevant to their 
duties and responsibilities. Courses are taught by a team of experts, which includes 
university faculty, government officials, professional speakers, Florida Association of 
Counties members and Florida Association of Counties staff” (Florida Institute for County 
Government, 2023c).  

• The Advanced County Commissioner program I (ACC I)— is an advanced leadership program 
designed for graduates of the CCC program. The content focuses on introductory-level 
leadership competencies like increasing self-awareness and decision making and strategic 
planning to aid commissioners in bringing positive change to leaders’ counties (Florida 
Association of Counties, 2023).  

• The Advanced County Commissioner program II (ACC II)— builds off the outcomes of the 
CCC and ACC I programs, providing context to the issues each commissioner is addressing in 
their counties. Both contextual expertise and leadership skills are addressed to help 
commissioners gain new perspectives on complex issues across Florida (Florida Association 
of Counties, 2023). 

 
The programs are well attended, and, as of 2020, the CCC program has 482 graduates, the ACC I 
program has 259 graduates, and the new level, the ACC II program, reached full attendance at 
20 commissioners (Florida Institute for County Government, 2023a). Each program takes one 
year to complete, and costs range from up to $1750 for CCC and $450 for ACC I and II. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   149 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of our study is to determine attitudes toward leadership programs among Florida 
county commissioners. Additionally, the study identifies which leadership skills commissioners 
prioritize in leadership development programs. Finally, the study addresses the impact that 
potential barriers have on participation in the ICG leadership programs, specifically whether 
commissioners from rural, resource-constrained counties have similar access to the ICG 
leadership programs as counties without this barrier. We identify rural, resource-constrained 
counties using the definition for fiscally constrained counties under Florida Statute § 218.67 
(2022). Fiscally constrained counties are rural and have limited revenue-raising capacity. We 
focus on fiscally constrained counties because these counties have a strong need for quality 
leadership yet lack the internal resources to provide it. Out of 67 Florida counties, 29 (~43%) 
are designated as fiscally constrained.  
 

Methods 
 
We distributed 120 surveys during a lunch session to county commissioners attending the 2022 
Florida Association of Counties Legislative Conference. Our eight-question survey asked 
commissioners their county1, how strongly they agreed or disagreed with statements pertaining 
to the importance and effectiveness of leadership development programs, which leadership 
competencies they prioritized for development, and to identify barriers to participation. 
Competencies were pulled from the course subjects taught in the CCC, ACC I, and ACC II 
curriculum. These competencies are often taught in multiple programs and at varying levels. 
We followed the best practices for survey design found in Dillman et al. (2014). A copy of the 
survey is available in the appendix. 

 
Fifty-two surveys were returned for a response rate of 43.3%. To determine the 
representativeness of our sample, we used data provided by the ICG from the year 2022 on the 
current population of Florida county commissioners (Florida Institute for County Government, 
2022). As seen in Table 1, our sample composition is similar to the population with respect to 
the proportion of commissioners from rural and fiscally constrained counties. We note that 
graduates from the programs are overrepresented in our sample. County commissioners who 
have already taken part in the programs may perceive leadership education more favorably, 
potentially biasing our results in a positive direction. Because we relied on a convenience 
sample of commissioners attending the conference, we do not generalize our results beyond 
the respondents. 
 
 
 
 

 
1 For the purpose of identifying commissioners representing fiscally constrained counties 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   150 
 

Table 2 
 
Composition of our sample vs. the population of Florida county commissioners in 2022 
 Sample (n = 52) Population (N =374) 
Number of counties represented 31 67 
From rural county 40.3% 42.5% 
From fiscally constrained county 32.7% 38.5% 
CCC graduates 59.6% 37.4% 
ACC I graduates 46.2% 25.7% 
ACC II graduates 26.9% 9.4% 

Note. Data on the current population of county commissioners was obtained from ICG (Florida 
Institute for County Government, 2022). 
 
In addition to analyzing survey data, we used secondary data on graduation2 from the ICG 
leadership programs to examine whether access differed for commissioners from fiscally 
constrained and non-constrained counties (Florida Institute for County Government, 2023b). 
First, we compared two time series depicting the number of graduates from fiscally constrained 
and non-fiscally constrained counties. Second, we compared the proportion of fiscally 
constrained and non-fiscally constrained commissioners holding office in 2022 and are 
graduates from each leadership program. The data spans from 2007 to 2022 and includes the 
number of graduates, the county that each commissioner represents, and the graduation year. 
 

Findings 
 
Attitudes Toward Leadership Education 
We first asked county commissioners whether they were aware of the leadership programs 
offered by ICG. Of our sample, ~90% were aware of the ICG leadership certifications, indicating 
that the program is well-known. Next, we asked how much they agree on a 5-point Likert scale 
with four statements related to the importance of access to programs and whether such 
programs improve local government. We found high levels of agreement with all four 
statements, as shown in Figure 2. Interestingly, while ~84% of our sample strongly agreed or 

 
2Access is typically investigated using enrollment and applicant pool data (see Castleman & Long, 2016). 
However, using enrollment data is inappropriate in the context of the ICG leadership programs because 
all commissioners are automatically enrolled in the Certified County Commissioner program upon 
election. Further, when a commissioner completes a leadership program, they are automatically 
enrolled in the next program tier. Although there are limitations when using graduation data to 
investigate access (e.g., we do not observe commissioners that participate but do not graduate from the 
programs), it is the best data available and can still provide valuable insight. For example, if we find that 
a smaller proportion of commissioners from fiscally constrained counties are program graduates 
compared to non-fiscally constrained counties, this may indicate that fiscally constrained counties have 
less access to the programs, potentially due to a lack of resources, and more effort can be directed 
towards increasing participation among fiscally constrained commissioners. 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   151 
 

somewhat agreed that participation in leadership programs makes county commissioners more 
effective, only ~78% strongly or somewhat agreed that taking part in leadership programs 
would make themselves more effective.  
 
Figure 2 
 

County commissioner attitudes toward ICG leadership development programs 

 
 
Prioritization of Topics for Leadership Development 
We asked county commissioners to identify the five most important competencies in which 
they would like further development. Figure 3 shows that the top five most frequently selected 
competencies were strategic planning, communication, economic trends in Florida, conflict 
resolution, and critical thinking. We also asked county commissioners whether there were any 
skills or topics that were not included in our list. The open responses fell into the following 
categories: change management, root cause analysis, statutory duties of county commissioners, 
county budgeting and finance, bridge building, time-management, public speaking, writing, and 
trust building.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   152 
 

Figure 3 
 

Prioritization of competencies by county commissioners 

 
 
Access to Leadership Education Programs 
Commissioners were asked in an open-ended question to name any barriers to participation. 
Only ten respondents identified barriers, nine of which related to time and scheduling and one 
that related to digital learning. While the CCC program shifted to being taught virtually during 
the COVID-19 pandemic and is likely to continue as an online program, ACC I and II have 
resumed sessions taught in-person. 
 
In addition to analyzing primary data, we used secondary data from ICG to compare the 
number of commissioners representing fiscally constrained counties who graduated from the 
leadership programs to commissioners representing non-fiscally constrained counties (Florida 
Institute for County Government, 2023b). The data spans from 2007 to 2022 and includes the 
number of graduates, the county a commissioner represents, and the graduation year. Our 
visualization of graduation from the ICG leadership education programs, presented in Figure 4, 
shows that enrollment in CCC and ACC I is cyclical, likely due to election cycles and term 
lengths, creating larger “freshman” classes of county commissioners in certain years. Figure 3 
also shows that graduation from fiscally constrained counties is comparable to graduation from 
non-fiscally constrained counties throughout the study period. Although limited data is 
available on graduation from ACC II since the launch of the program in 2019, the short series 
follows a similar pattern.  
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   153 
 

Figure 4 
 

Graduation from ICG leadership programs among county commissioners 2007–2022 
 

 
Note. The ACC II program was launched in 2019 and had no graduates in 2020 because the class 
schedule was changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in the 2020 class graduating in 
August 2021. Data provided by the ICG (Florida Institute for County Government, 2023b). 
 

As a final check, we used data on all county commissioners holding office in 2022 to compare 
the proportion of leadership-program graduates from fiscally-constrained and non-fiscally-
constrained counties. An examination of the proportions provides added insight into how much 
graduates of the program make up the total population of county commissioners as well as the 
population from each county type. The results are presented in Figure 5 and show that the 
proportion of commissioners from fiscally constrained counties who were graduates of the 
programs is equal or higher than the proportion of commissioners from non-fiscally constrained 
counties. A test of equal proportions3 revealed no differences between the groups for the ACC I 
and ACC II programs. However, for the CCC program, the test indicated that the proportion of 
fiscally constrained commissioners is significantly larger (χ! = 5.414, 𝑝 = 0.019). Taken 
together, the graphical evidence and the test of equal proportions suggest that fiscally-
constrained county commissioners have comparable access to ICG’s leadership programs. 

 
3The null hypothesis of this test is that the proportions of the two groups are the same. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   154 
 

Figure 5 
  
Percent of program graduates among 2022 Florida county commissioners 

 
Note. Data provided by the ICG (2022).  

 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Through Extension, we have opportunities to convey crucial context and skills to county 
commissioners, who, with their power to zone, budget, and plan future development, make 
regular decisions that have substantial implications for local agricultural and environmental 
systems. Our study gauges the attitudes of commissioners toward leadership programs, 
uncovers the top priority competencies as well as barriers to participation, and investigates 
access to the programs among commissioners from rural, resource-constrained counties. 

Regarding attitudes, we find strong agreement among commissioners that access to leadership 
programs is important and that these programs improve local government. The positive 
perceptions found within our sample is an important step towards demonstrating that the 
programs have strong buy-in from the target audience. A key takeaway is that Extension 
professionals with a thorough understanding of leadership education can provide a value-
added resource in the form of leadership development to local elected officials.  
 
All five of the top-ranked competencies are taught throughout ACC I and II, indicating that the 
leadership programs are well-aligned with the priorities of Florida county commissioners. The 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   155 
 

top-ranked items include a blend of skills and context-focused topics. It is no surprise that 
county commissioners ranked the competencies in this order. Due to the nature of their job, 
the top competencies (e.g., strategic planning and communication) are related to “Problem 
Solving Skills” (Mumford et al., 2000). Other skills (e.g., humility and emotional intelligence) 
associated with “Social Judgement Skills” fall further down the list most likely due to 
commissioners’ beliefs they already possess the competencies that help leaders understand 
people and work in social systems (Mumford et al., 2000). Our results suggest that Extension-
based leadership development programs can address two important needs: (a) develop the 
core competencies most needed by local leadership, and (b) serve as a trusted information 
source on topics important to decision making. Insight from our competency rankings can be 
used by Extension specialists to design and improve their own programs. However, context 
plays a critical role in leadership development, and competency rankings may change based 
upon commissioners’ needs. Future research could collect and compare competency rankings 
across different programs to establish a national Extension leadership development resource. 
 
Given that the goal of the county commissioner leadership development programs is to build 
the capacity of local elected officials in all counties, access is an especially important 
consideration. We analyze whether fiscally constrained counties, which tend to be rural and 
resource constrained, have access comparable to that of non-fiscally-constrained counties. We 
find no substantial difference in terms of historical graduation numbers and the proportion of 
2022 commissioners who are graduates of each program. Additionally, while a few 
commissioners from both types of counties identified time and scheduling as barriers to 
participation, responses from fiscally constrained and non-fiscally constrained counties were 
indistinguishable. Taken together, the evidence from our sample does not indicate that fiscally 
constrained counties are disproportionately affected by barriers to the programs. 
 
Our examination of the leadership programs administered by ICG and Extension presents the 
results from a single state, and future research should consider the perceptions, priorities, and 
participation of elected officials towards leadership programs in other contexts to supply more 
insight. Additionally, though the goal of these leadership programs is to build the capacity of 
local communities, there is little empirical research that links participation to economic or social 
outcomes. Such studies would supply valuable insight into whether leadership programs can 
effect change at the community level.  
 

Acknowledgements 
 
We thank Becky Berentsen and Eric Poole at Institute for County Government for their support 
and assistance with our study. Author Contributions: N. Palardy – conceptualizations, formal 
analysis, investigation, writing-original draft; M. Sowcik – conceptualization, investigation, 
writing-review and editing. 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   156 
 

References 
 
Bennett, C. (1975). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, 13(2), 7–12. 
 
Castleman, B. L., & Long, B. T. (2016). Looking beyond enrollment: The causal effect of need-

based grants on college access, persistence, and graduation. Journal of Labor Economics, 
34(4), 1023–1073. https://doi.org/10.1086/686643 

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated  
 
Distribution for fiscally constrained counties, Fla. Stat. § 218.67 (2022). 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2022/218.67  
 
Florida Institute for County Government. (2022). Current county commissioners 12-2022. 

Distributed by the Institute for County Government. 
 
Florida Institute for County Government. (2023a). All ICG graduates. Distributed by the Institute 

for County Government. 
 
Florida Institute for County Government. (2023b). Certified county commissioner program. 

https://flicg.org/certified-county-commissioner-program/ 
 
Florida State University. (2010). Urban percentage of the population for states, historical. 

https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-states  
 
Li, S., Wu, F., Duan, Y., Singerman, A., & Guan, Z. (2020). Citrus greening: Management 

strategies and their economic impact. HortScience, 55(5), 604–612. 
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI14696-19   

 
McKee, V., Odom, S., Moore, L., & Murphrey, T. (2016). Impacts of an agricultural leadership 

extension program for county officials. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 202–
216. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.04202 

 
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, M. S., & Marks, M. A. (2000). Leadership skills: 

Conclusions and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 155–170. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00047-8 

 
Office of Economic & Demographic Research. (2019). Demographic estimating conference. 

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/population/demographicsummary.pdf 
 
Rinehart, S. H., & Smith, K. L. (1995). Leadership and managerial skills of county 

commissioners. Journal of Extension, 33(1), Article 1RIB3. 
https://archives.joe.org/joe/1995february/rb3.php  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333
https://doi.org/10.1086/686643
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2022/218.67
https://flicg.org/certified-county-commissioner-program/
https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-states
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI14696-19
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.04202
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00047-8
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/population/demographicsummary.pdf
https://archives.joe.org/joe/1995february/rb3.php


Palardy and Sowcik  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333   157 
 

 
Rockwell, K., & Bennett, C. (2004). Targeting outcomes of programs: A hierarchy for targeting 

outcomes and evaluating their achievement. Faculty Publications: Agricultural 
Leadership, Education & Communication Department, 48. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/48/ 

 
 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.333
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/48/

