AICP: Does Planning Certification Matter?

In reading Mr. Carson's comments, it seems to me he is focusing most of his negative views about AICP certification towards those who seek a career path leading to management, specifically in a public agency. With 30 years of experience in planning as a consultant and also working for municipalities, I would agree with Mr. Carson that AICP is not necessary if one is seeking a management position in a public agency. But then, management is NOT planning. It is management. If this is what one seeks, his advice of getting an MPA instead of a Masters in Planning is probably a good one.

At the same time, I disagree with him that an AICP certification is a hindrance. By the time one achieves a career level where one is ready for management, potential employers are far more interested in one's work experience than he/she is in one's education or certification. I have been involved in hiring enough public Planning Directors and Community Development Directors to say I have never seen anyone discounted for being too identifed as a planner. However, if their management skills are or seem to be lacking, it does not matter how good of a planner they are, they will likely get passed over.

As for working in the consulting field, an AICP certification can be helpful early on to establish one's credibility as a planner, but I do not believe it is necessary. For the majority of planning firms, at least 50% if not more of their contracts come from word of mouth, from clients they have previously worked for, etc. These clients, like employers, hire a planning firm based on experience and achievement, not based on degrees or certifications of the planners.

However, in those instances when a firm is responding with a proposal to either a private or public client who does not know them, the AICP certifications of its planners can provide credibility. The contract, however, will still be given to the firm based on the firm's experience.

Does AICP help a Planner get a job with a consulting firm? I believe it can early on, but not as one advances in his/her career. As one advances, experience and expertise is the issue, not education and certification. Early on, it may help get you that interview, but after that it is your experience and proven expertise that lands you the job.

Where I disagree with Mr. Carson is his apparent belief that AICP certification can hurt one's career. I have seen no evidence of this in my professional life and do not believe it to be true. If one is skilled in those areas of expertise needed for one's career path, AICP is not going to hurt anyone. Why would it? Because one is too identified with planning for a management position? Hell, look at the resume of planners who have become Directors and their entire career identifies them as a planners. Passing a test and putting four letters after their name ain't gonna hurt. If the resume leads them logically to the positon they seek, they have a good chance of getting it with or without AICP. If it doesn't lead them logically to the position, AICP won't help either.

I read with great interest Mr. Carson’s article on the value of an AICP. Now that I have reached the stage of my life that I refer to a comfortably middle aged, the validity of the AICP is something I find myself questioning more often. I spent the majority of my career working as a consultant and simply assumed that all planners practiced with the same standards of professionalism that I did. That assumption was wrong.

After twenty years of private practice, the mayor of my hometown asked if I would consider becoming his planning director. The city was faced with enormous growth pressures, and was looking for someone to take the helm of a planning agency that was going to have deal with development rates that went from three percent per year to twenty five percent per year. I agreed to take the job and then I learned more in the following six months than I did in planning school and twenty years of practice. What I learned is that in general the sum total of the planning knowledge of most of the people who practice our profession ends with their ability to spell the word planner.

For twenty years I had scoffed at the idea that becoming an AICP would be meaningful in anyway. Now I am a strong advocate for state registration of professional planners, and I hope that the AICP designation will become as meaningful as the NCARB is for architects. I took the AICP because it is becoming requirement for professional planners in Florida. At the time I thought the exam was less than challenging and still do; however, for most of us it is the only available measure of professionalism.

As a profession and as a professional society planners and the APA must redefine the meaning of “planner”. We cannot practice in the vacuum that surrounds most planners. Tax rates, interest rates, infrastructure costs and just plain politics are far more important to residents and elected officials than new urbanism. Until our profession learns that lesson and “outgrows the boy scout with a power complex” (your quote of Ian McHarg) we will be condemned to be the Rodney Dangerfield of the professional occupations.

So while at the moment the AICP is something less honored than a P.E. or AIA, it is planners that make it so. We tolerate mediocrity, and we do not encourage our peers to understand finance or the political process. By the way every successful city or county engineer that I know is successful not because they are a good engineer but rather because they are good administrators. The same applies to planning directors. Since coming to government, I have changed jobs once, I have moved to a larger city facing the same problems as the first one I worked for. I moved to my new city not because I am the best planner in south Florida, but because they were looking for a generalist who could speak to citizens and politicians, for someone who was recognized opportunities and was not a planner in the traditional mold. I believe in the road less traveled, but at the end of the day it is not the AICP credential that is limiting but rather it is the self imposed limitations that most planners labor with most damage our credibility.

Just because Mr. Carson's "road less traveled" has lead to success does not mean that other roads less traveled cannot include both a planning degree and certification.

If you read closely his commentary trying to discount AICP certification, he starts off implying that you should not even bother with a graduate degree in planning, let alone getting certified. He suggests you are better served getting a degree specializing in the management of people rather than one in which you learn the fundamentals and special skills of community planning. With this apparent anti-planning degree bias, I can see why he might diminish the importance of AICP certification.

Setting aside this apparent bias for a moment, and looking just at AICP certification, for Mr. Carson to say the "designation is a joke" and some how a "limit on professional horizons" seems rather short sighted. I won't debate the origins of AICP certification (whether or not it was really due to a fury of professional envy), or why a national push for registration failed. I won't dispute that Mr. Carson's experience of the last 25 years has been that people who are non-AICP manage the larger planning agencies. What I find baffling is his assertion that certification, something representing one's commitment to their profession, will somehow harm a planning career.

True, times are changing; the profession is changing. One-stop shops and "multi-disciplinary project teams" are being created for more efficient development review. Effective management skills are needed - as are highly developed planning skills. Mr. Carson seems to suggest that it is more important to have the management background, that you can just pick up the planning as you go along. This is backwards thinking. It is the planning foundation (whether land use, environmental, transportation, housing, economic development or any other emphasis) and continued development in your field that is important to becoming an effective planner. As you continue through your career, you will learn (if you haven't already) to work in multi-disciplinary teams, manage projects, head divisions and departments. It is much easier to develop your "people skills" and your management style than it is to pick up a solid planning foundation.

To say that the initials AICP after your name will somehow stereotype you as any less capable a manager, or any less a team player to your "multi-disciplinary teammates", is quite a leap. An AICP planner should be no more stereotyped than the PE or the FAIA of the team. The connotation in Mr. Carson's comment that somehow the AICP is a badge worn to show all your teammates that you are THE planner and they're not seems only reflective of his apparent anti-planning degree bias.

With this said, there are several good reasons to become AICP certified. First, to do so reflects a desire for continued professional development. You must make the conscious effort to apply for, study for, take and pass the exam. You always have the option to not care about certification, or not bother. To commit to the process is a significant step.

Second, though still currently voluntary, AICP recommends continued professional development through attending workshops, lectures, conferences and other educational opportunities. They recognize that it is not enough to simply pass the exam; that in order to be truly effective you must continue to grow in your profession (this includes developing management skills).

Third, despite many opinions to the contrary, becoming AICP is more than simply passing the 150-question, multiple choice exam. At least it should be. AICP places a strong emphasis on the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. As professional planners, community builders working for the civic good, we should hold high standards for professional conduct. Becoming AICP is one way to show your commitment to such standards.

I will always advocate anything that can further you in your career, whether it's AICP certification, reading planning periodicals, attending conferences and lectures, or taking management workshops. The idea that AICP certification can actually hurt your career is simply not true, not if you always strive to become a better planner.

It is striving that is the road less traveled.

Justin P. Carney, AICP

Missouri Chapter PDO

Mr. Carson makes several excellent points in his article. It is interesting to note the percentage of planners who are not certified (although Mr. Colton's commentary raises doubts about the validity of this precise figure).

In other industries, such as technology, accounting, law, medicine, social work, and even teaching, certification has been an important evolution in that professional occupation.

Certification demonstrates (usually by an objective third party) subject matter expertise. The use of certifications in professional occupations is not in question -- this system has been consistently proven in business literature to have a variety of positive effects both on the company, the employee, and the market.

Therefore, the question is not whether there SHOULD be certification for planning, but HOW RIGOROUS and under what conditions that certification process should exist.

If the planning community does not see value in the certification, then the level of knowledge and experience for certification should be raised to make the certification more competitive and more rigorous. Legal and accounting certifications are widely known to be difficult. Some technology certifications, such as those by Cisco and Red Hat, are reputed to fail over 60% of those who take the exams. As a result, the perceived value of the certification is enhanced for those who do pass it.

Planning is a vital occupation -- as important as any other in our society. The certification program must clearly demonstrate that a certified planner is supremely qualified to be a planner. The most efficient, and fastest way to do this is to dramatically increase the difficulty of the exam. APA/AICP should publicly state that it is their goal to fail 50% of all those who take the exam. Make the exam as difficult as possible so that it doesn't require memorization, but critical thinking, experience, and and understanding of core urban planning principles.

Based on the business literature and what has been learned from other professional industries, making the exam dramatically more rigorous and enhancing the level of competition required for AICP certification will have the practical result of making the degree more valued both within the industry, and by the public that interacts with the planner.

The AICP apparently now means you can be investigated and a regular APA member cannot. Recently the AICP initiated an investigation against a member who is a planner of the Columbia Gorge Commission. The investigation allowed no substantive due process of law and the AICP member resigned rather than allow the investigation to ruin his planning career. Why was the investigation begun? Mainly because of a political fight between the federally mandate commission and the local county who did not like the federal mandates.

I have been in the urban/regional planning profession for the last 45 years and agree with much of what Mr. Carson had to say in his article. My main exception was with his statement that "AICP was an attempt by planners to get the recognition that other professions were achieving." This is incorrect. AICP was an attempt of planning professionals to regain a distinction that they had enjoyed as members of the American Institute of Planners (AIP) before my old, respected friend, Israel Stollman, the Executive Director of the American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO), talked boards of the two separate organizations into merging into the present American Planning Association (APA). When he pulled off that bloodless coup, Israel managed to have the title 'Planner' grandfathered onto every then existing ASPO member serving on every Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Development Review Board, and others such appointive bodies throughout the world. At that time, I had been a fully-certified member of AIP for about 15 years after having gone up through the ranks like many others who were the foot soldiers, non-coms and field commanders of our profession.

During the next few years following that merger and the blurring of the distinctions between the pros and political appointees, AIP, as a functioning organization, seems to have been tossed into a corner. Then, someone, and I don't recall whom, maybe Israel Stollman, introduced the brilliant idea of the American Institute of Certified Planners as a professional adjunct of APA, which, once again, would provide some clarity as to who were and were not qualified to call themselves 'professional planners.'

I do recall that when AICP was created, former AIP'ers were offered a limited window through which they could be grandfathered in as AICP'ers. By that time, I was beginning to work on my new persona as 'planning curmudgeon' and opted to bail out. I had become disenchanted by too many years spent as a member of AIP observing the paradigm of the urban/regional planning profession change from 'city beautiful' to 'land use' to 'transportation' to regional science (a la Christaller's "Die Zentralen Orte In Suddeutschland" and that bunch at the University of Chicago)' to 'social planning and power-to-the-people' to 'let's protect the birds, the beasts, the fields and the forests' to 'neo-traditional' to 'new urbanism' to the latest stage in the evolutionary process, which appears to an amalgamation of all predecessors but, in reality, is no more than a Sierra Club-driven attempt to obfuscate their true objective of stopping growth, the paradigm called 'GROWTH MANAGEMENT!'

During my years in the profession, I have served as the Senior Planner of a large metropolitan city/county planning department, City Planning Director of a southwestern city with a major university, Director of Economic Planning and Deputy Director of Environmental Planning of the 2nd fastest-growing state in the U.S., Comprehensive Planner for one of the largest, fastest-growing resort communities in the U.S., and, for 16 years, as an urban/regional planning consultant for public and private clients in Tennessee, Arizona, California, Colorado, and Nevada.

When I was in the Arizona Governor's office, I invited Ian McHarg to our state on a couple of occasions to address the members of our planning profession on the topic of 'designing with nature.' One one of those visits, I believe I recall him saying to me, in his lovely Scottish burr, "A planner, o'course, is a boy scout wi'a power complex." Perhaps the title 'AICP' serves to empower or, at least, imbue us with some sense of doing meritorious works during our time on this planet.

A hearty AMEN! to Richard Carson's editorial. When the up-and-coming ask for my opinion on whether to take the AICP exam, I respond similarly to Mr. Carson. Will it help to advance your career? Unless you happen to live in a state, such as New Jersey, which I've heard requires AICP accreditation for it's planners, then the answer is no. I've always been of the opinion that passing the test only proves that you can memorize a finite amount of information and regurgitate it back correctly. It has no reflection on your abilities as a planner.