Should Planners Be Licensed?

By Joseph A. Pobiner, AICP
Excerpted from the April/May 1994 issue of Texas Planning Review, the newsletter of the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association. Copyright by Joseph A. Pobiner; used with permission.

At present, only Michigan and New Jersey regulate the practice of planning at the state level through a process of certification and licensure. Hawaii has considered similar legislation, and other states are likely to follow.

Licensing probably won't solve any problems related to the practice of planning, but it might give planners a way to improve the quality of such practice. Many associated disciplines--engineers, landscape architects, architects, lawyers--offer professional planning consulting services. The discipline of planning sprang from these (and other) professions. Yet all of these professions are strictly regulated. By law, a certified planner cannot legally call him/herself an engineer, architect, and so on. With planning becoming increasingly specialized, would licensing ensure the quality of work from those calling themselves "planners"?

How would such a system work? Probably planning would copy the certification processes of other professions. An overall national exam with sections of state-specific questions could be administered. The exam used by the American Institute of Certified Planners (an institute of the American Planning Association) seems to be the logical vehicle for such a test. But since APA is composed of professional and citizen planners, would/should the "lay planners" be allowed to take the exam or not? Would such a distinction alienate a large segment of APA's membership?

Grandfathering all existing practicing planners, regardless of certification or education, would also undoubtedly be required. That means, in effect, that it would take quite some time to ensure that all "licensed" practicing planners had gone through the certification process. One solution might be the introduction of a system for naming AICP "fellows," similar to the system used by the American Society of Landscape Architects and the American Institute of Architects.

If planners were certified, perhaps there would be a provision in the state procurement code that would exempt planning proposals from competitive bids. That would assure public clients that planning services were selected based on merit and experience, not merely price.

Planners Respond

Excerpted from the June/July 1994 issue of Texas Planning Review. Copyright by Joseph A. Pobiner; used with permission.

I conducted a brief informal straw poll of Texas APA members to get a sense of their feeling towards licensing. Of the members I spoke to, there was roughly a 50/50 split on the issue:

• Those who favored licensing tended to be AICP certified planners, and many of them were practicing in the private sector or held upper management public sector positions. Most of these individuals saw licensing as a way to support and improve the quality of the profession.
• Those who opposed licensing tended to be non-AICP planners who opposed the idea of a second level of testing in order to called a "planner." Opponents also tended to be members of affiliated professions that practiced as planners, citing a potential loss of business if licensing were required.

Joseph Pobiner is the editor of the Texas Planning Review.