Home ›

Krumholz Responds: The Case For Planning Certification

28 February 2001 - 12:00am
Author:

The president of AICP responds to the charge that planning certification can actually harm a planner's career. AICP represents the highest standard of the profession.

Richard Carson tells us that he is a planner and a member of APA "who wants to be more than a planner" but also "a builder of community". So does every planner reading this newsletter. Carson also tells us that some "larger planning agencies are managed by people who are not AICP" and that some agencies are actually managed by lawyers and "political hacks". No doubt this is true, but the news will not surprise many planners.

So where's the beef? The beef is in his critique of the AICP designation as "such a joke."

According to Carson, the AICP designation "actually works against you as you advance" and "limits your ability to manage other professionals (i.e. engineers, building officials, scientists) because you are stereotyped". These statements are perfect nonsense for the following reasons:

1. As planning issues become more regional and complex, AICP planners are becoming increasingly diversified. More and more planners are moving out of traditional jobs in local government and working outside of city hall for banks, developers, foundations and non-profit community development corporations. On a day-to-day basis, many AICP planners are involved in negotiating environmental and NIMBY disputes, in acting as close advisors to their mayors and city managers and in coordinating the work of many departments of government including transportation, housing, social services and economic development. To think of the work of these AICP planners as "stereotyped" or rigidly confined is absurd.

2. The desire for top-notch professionalism in planning, just as in other professions, is not a new idea. It goes back to l9l7 when the former American Institute of Planners was formed out of the earlier American City Planning Institute. So the idea of certification and professionalism which AICP now represents has a long and distinguished history.

3. Far from rejecting certification, planners are more interested. The membership size of AICP has continued a steady growth since its inception in APA, and the membership has never declined. Almost half of all APA members are now AICP; record numbers are now taking the exam; and it is likely that in 200l or 2002 a majority of APA members will be AICP. Thus, in the judgement of an overwhelming number of planners, submitting themselves to examination and certification is a worthwhile thing to do. These planners are neither misled or foolish, but want to equip themselves to the highest standard of their profession.

4. Seeking certification by an objective organization and examination shows others -- the public at large, elected officials, and other professionals -- that the AICP planner has met certain minimum education and experience requirements. This is more reliable and professional than a self-serving resume. AICP is more than a certifying organization, but a leader in continued professional education.

5. AICP members must pledge to uphold a code of ethics and are subject to discipline if they are found in violation of the code. In my view, it is heartening to see that the planning profession is willing to adopt and abide by a code that defines conflicts of interest, responsibility to the public, and respect for human and environmental resources, all the very best instincts of a democratic society. Being an AICP member is more than just having a job in planning; it is a pledge to respect democratic processes and a standard of excellence.

Norman Krumholz is a 20-year planning practitioner and professor at Cleveland State University. He was formerly president of American Planning Association (1987) and is currently president of the American Institute of Certified Planners (1999-2001).

»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Planning is an Inclusive Profession

Submitted by Joseph A. Pobiner, AICP (not verified) on Tue, 04/03/2001 - 15:20.

I support the notion of a planning registration procedure that is inclusive and strengthens the profession, not one that excludes others because they have a different set of letters after their name.

As a planner with 23 years experience, I have found that the planning profession to be an inclusive one. To answer your questions in advance: Yes, I am AICP certified; and, Yes, my degree is a Master of City and Regional Planning.

Like many other planners, I started out in the public sector but found that my skills and abilities were transferable to the private sector as a planning consultant. I consider myself fortunate to have been associated with several excellent firms in my career – engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. I am now the Director of Planning for one of the largest design firms in the nation. From my vantage point, planning, as a discipline, has been an excellent and necessary “fit” for all of these allied professionals.

As former Editor/Publisher of the “Texas Planning Review” (newsletter of the Texas Chapter of APA), I have supported some type of registration mechanism and spoke on this very subject at APA’s Toronto Conference in 1995. The crux of that discussion was that planning registration – if it comes to pass – must be inclusive. There are too many allied professions involved in planning to simply say “you can no longer call yourself a planner”. As well all know, if it weren’t for architects, landscape architects, engineers, environmentalists, engineers, attorneys, etc., “planning” would not exist as a profession (or would surely be much different from how we know it today).

What I witnessed in Toronto was the tremendous galvanizing effect the topic of “registration” has. While some consider this in an intellectual, detached fashion, others become quite rattled. This, it appears to me, is one of the challenges of even discussing registration. I don’t think this should be a black-and-white issue. Like all other professions, planning benefits from all of its participants – citizen, volunteer, professional, academic, etc. Why would we want to damage our profession by alienating the very individuals that gives us strength?

In lieu of any uniform standard, AICP has been held up as one measure of a planner’s knowledge, competence, and commitment to the profession. Of course, we’ve also heard the opinion that AICP is merely evidence that an individual was able to pass a test (a multiple-choice test at that!). Of course, the same allegation could be said for other registrations – PE, AIA, ASLA, Attorney, etc. But a fundamental difference is that most of those registered professions also require continuing education. This combats the allegation that passing a test years ago qualifies one for a different level of professional consideration. AICP has been experimenting with voluntary continuing education requirement, but I have heard much resistance to this as well.

So is registration a good idea? Maybe, but not necessarily for everyone.

Personally, I like the idea of a state-by-state referendum on planning registration. However, I do not see a practical way to mandate the requirement in a blanket fashion. There are too many good planners out there who happen to be lawyers, engineers, architects, etc. There are also too many good AICP planners out there as well. Why, on earth, would we want to push these talented individuals away?

Planning registration, if realized, should be just another level of professional recognition, not necessarily one of exclusion. Planning registration should also be tied to an active continuing education requirement that is more than just attending a state or national conference every year or so. It should also allow reciprocity with other allied professions – ranging from 100% reciprocity to some type of abridged registration procedure that recognizes allied knowledge and expertise.

In my mind, APA and AICP are better served by not excluding anyone that can make a contribution to the profession. However, we must preserve the quality of our planning professionals – be they planners, architects, citizens, whatever.

I support a more inclusive view of registration that serves this purpose.

Certification of Planners

Submitted by Joshua S. Freeman (not verified) on Mon, 04/02/2001 - 07:16.

I would like to second Sheryl Stolzenberg's Feb. 28 Submission.

I was drawn to the planning profession because of its inherently multi-disciplinary nature. The individual who first inspired me to become a planner was a former botanist, another an agricultural economist, and yet another a social worker. Each of these individuals identified issues not addressed by their former professions, and saw planning as a more appropriate way to address these issues. A good planner, in my opinion, is one that is able to identify, understand and address the connections between seemingly unrelated issues, perspectives, etc., and the planners best suited to do this are often those who bring into the profession a set of experiences that are outside of the typical academic planning program.

While I do not believe that certifications and "nuts and bolts" academic requirements are necessarily a bad thing, I do think that overemphasizing these things puts at risk the diversity that characterizes the planning profession by excluding, in Mr. Chapin's words, "...some self proclaimed professional who never once attended an accredited institution...". A case in point is the licensing requirements associated with the North American forestry profession. The academic and certification requirements of professional forester licensing programs of most states have certainly increased the knowledge and professionalism of forestry practitioners. However, by generally prohibiting those individuals who are not graduates of accredited schools of forestry from becoming "certified foresters", these programs have had the unintended effect of creating an insular, industry-biased professional culture that is slow to change, that stifles innovation, and that is virtually closed to new (and often dissenting) blood.

It is understandable and probably appropriate for planners to seek professional recognition through certifications and academic standards, but we should seek ways to avoid the professional arrogance and monoculturalism that often characterizes other professions with strong certification programs.

Respectfully,

Joshua Freeman

MCIP

Submitted by Corby Chapin (not verified) on Thu, 03/01/2001 - 18:26.

Same as AICP, MCIP (Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners) represents professionalism and dedication in the field of planning in Canada. If there is no certification, then exactly what separates me from some self proclaimed professional who never once attended an accredited institution?

Certification of Planners

Submitted by Sheryl Stolzenberg (not verified) on Wed, 02/28/2001 - 23:52.

I have 27 years of experience as a planner and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from a University that no longer issues planning degrees (perhaps because the future of this field is dissolving into a mass of infighting?). My experience includes comprehensive planning, land use planning, creation of innovative zoning districts, plans for transportation of the disabled, "208" large basin water quality management plans, greenway plans, major citizen input efforts and intergovernmental coordination. I have worked at every level of government except the Federal.

I challenge anyone to suggest that, without an "AICP" after my name, I am less qualified than someone with considerably less experience who happens to test well. I believe that I have been, and continue to be, an asset to each community I've been permitted to serve, and can point proudly to clean water, affordable housing and creative redevelopment that all occurred after plans I'd worked on were adopted. No, I didn't build the housing or operate the treatment plants, but without the plans, funds would not have been allocated for these ventures.

I've watched many professionals trained in engineering or the legal profession who spent a few years working on a planning staff, took the AICP test and passed; based on this, I've concluded that certification is available to any professional who serves some time on a planning staff, can memorize well, and has more money than I do to pay for books, tests, and membership. And as far as ethics -- excuse me, but I don't need to pay a membership fee to observe ethical standards.

If the ability to call oneself a member of the Bar has not protected the nation from unethical conduct by lawyers, I fail to see how a paper admitting one to certified plannerhood will protect from misconduct by planners. Certification comes down to one thing: private sector planners who are trying to protect their livelihood from encroachment by engineers, lawyers and others who want to represent developers before policy boards.

I see no benefit to certification for public sector planners, with the possible exception of planning directors. I see even less benefit of certification for academicians, whose students would greatly benefit from more time in the field and less time in classroom utopias that render them unable to deal with the real planning world once they've reached it.

I'm sure other professionals are smugly amused by all the infighting going on in this profession about certification, and I wish we could just get over it and get on with the real work of planning.

So let me make a deal with all you certifiables out there: I won't tell you NOT to spend money on certification if you don't tell me I have to have an AICP to work at my job. OK?

Now, can we just get back to work, please?!

Bookmark and Share

Related News Stories

    There are currently no posts in this category.

“
The interdisciplinary nature of these challenges justifies a more decisive federal policy that helps metropolitan areas promote energy and location-efficient development.
”