 |
 |
|
a |
|
March/April
Illlinois Planning News, Edition 90
Paula Freeze, Editor |
|
|
|
|
|
APA's Response to
Planetizen's CM Opinion Piece
|
|
|
|
|
 |
A firery op-ed article regarding CM was posted on Planetizen
March 6, 2008.
Click
here for the original article. It was written by Arthur Nelson,
FAICP of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Leonardo
Vazquez, AICP of Rutgers University, Jennifer Evans-Cowley, AICP of
Ohio State University, and Chris Steins, Planetizen Editor "on behalf
of a growing number of planning education providers who are being
harmed by the American Institute of Certified Planners' Certification
Maintenance (CM) program." The authors contend that "the new
continuing education program set up by the American Planning
Association's American Institute of Certified Planners is an unfair
system that will prevent AICP-certified planners from getting
affordable, high-quality education." Graham
Billingsley, AICP President, and Monica Groh, Manager of Professional
Development and AICP for the American Planning Association, have
issued formal responses to this op-ed: AICP President's
Message
By Graham Billingsley, AICP
January 1st was a milestone for the planning profession. On that day,
AICP officially began its Certification Maintenance (CM) program,
which requires members to engage in professional development in order
to maintain their certification. This program was much needed, but at
the same time it was a risk, but a risk worth taking. The continued
health of AICP is dependent on a meaningful credential. CM is one of
the steps we are taking to build on the heritage of certification.
AICP members have demonstrated a commitment to high standards of
professional practice. By staying up-to-date with the latest planning
tools and techniques, AICP members advance the quality and integrity
of the planning profession. By formalizing that professional
development in our Certification Maintenance program, we enhance the
credibility of the planning profession. At the time of the approval
last April, the AICP Commission made a commitment to listen and make
changes as they were needed. In hindsight we are comfortable this was
the best way to do this, create the program and amend as needed.
Without actual experience, all the efforts would have still led to an
incomplete result. Through member feedback, with two rounds of formal
feedback from AICP members, and significant input from academic
members, the Commission made many changes to the proposed program in
response. We continue to listen and intend to act on what we hear.
Yes, this process is frustrating to some, but it is similar to writing
a new zoning code. Rare is the code that needs no amendments.
In creating the CM program, the AICP Commission discussed at great
length how to pay for the program. We agreed that the cost of
administering CM should not come from a member dues increase, or from
an increase in member fees. We believed unanimously that the program
should be paid for by the education providers including APA and its
components, and that it must relate directly to the total costs for
implementing the program.
We are committed to working with education providers to make the CM
program a success. For those that become a registered CM provider,
AICP's 17,000 professional city, rural, suburban, and regional
planners will look to their training programs to fulfill the CM
requirement. The CM program is a great way for providers to reach a
huge audience of professional planners interested in training
programs—and a way for us to ensure that AICP members can find
top-quality training programs.
So far, nearly 200 providers have registered more than 3500
activities. Since the AICP Commission approved the Certification
Maintenance program last April, staff and Commission members have
contacted and met with more than 700 training providers from around
the country to encourage them to register as CM providers and submit
their activities for CM credit. We want to ensure that available
training opportunities cover a variety of topics but also are
delivered in a variety of formats from online training to seminars and
workshops.
As other professions have discovered, some potential providers may
either not know about the program or choose not to participate, so
members have been asked to help us recruit more CM providers by
e-mailing staff at
CMproviderinvite@planning.org about training providers, or
downloading a fact sheet from our website to pass along to favorite
training providers.
Also, we are reaching out to officials and professionals who hire and
work with planners to encourage them to hire AICP-certified planners
and support the professional development of their planning staff. This
marketing of the credential is important to the continued success of
AICP planners. The formal commitment to continuing education that
Certification Maintenance represents is a central part of the message
we’re sharing with those colleagues. We’re showing the people planners
work with every day—and the people who might hire a planner
tomorrow—that the four letters after a planner's name signify
expertise, credibility, and dedication to ethical practice.
Planners now join the ranks of professionals that have continuing
education requirements—attorneys, architects, accountants, and others.
Certification Maintenance is now demonstrating our credibility to the
public officials, citizens, and colleagues who rely on us—and
advancing the quality and integrity of the planning profession.
The Certification Maintenance program links certified planners to
training opportunities that will keep them up-to-date with the latest
trends, technologies, and best practices. When providers register,
we’ll let AICP members know about their CM-approved activities in our
online directory of CM providers and in our online calendar of events.
The benefits of becoming a CM provider include expanded listings on
APA’s online calendar of events, inclusion in the online directory of
registered CM providers, use of the CM logo in marketing and
promotional materials, feedback from attendees offered through our
automated rating mechanism, and partnership opportunities with APA
Chapters and Divisions.
Every provider must pay an annual nonrefundable $95 registration fee.
We want to keep the entry fee as low as possible. Additional fees are
assessed based on the number of credits for which each activity is
eligible. The annual registration fee includes two CM credits.
Additional fees are required for each activity submitted for CM credit
beyond the two included credits. The $50 per additional credit fee
covers activity review, marketing, outreach, and database costs. The
Commission will be receiving reports from staff on alternative fee
schedules that may better suit certain types of training. Our hope is
that we can develop a flexible fee schedule that will encourage
non-APA providers to offer their training as part of the CM program.
Education providers should visit our website to learn more about
calculating CM costs for your activity:
www.planning.org/cm. They
should also continue to have a dialog with staff and the Commission
about issues as they come up. We’re here, and we are listening.
Response By Monica Groh
Manager of Professional Development and AICP for the American Planning
Association
The initiation of Certification Maintenance on January 1, 2008 was
a milestone for the planning profession and today, barely two months
into the program, almost 200 providers are offering 3,500 activities
for CM credit. This program is a significant change from the previous
volunteer continuing education program. As always with change, it is a
learning experience for everyone involved.
I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify some questions about the
program.
Prior to adoption by the AICP Commission in April 2007, numerous
discussions were held and research conducted to best formulate a
program that would meet our members’ needs and those of providers.
These surveys, discussions and two rounds of member and provider
feedback lasted from late 2005 through April of 2007.
As part of the extensive staff research work in support of the AICP
Commission’s deliberations during that time, we contacted several
organizations with professional certification programs, including
those representing architects, attorneys, landscape architects and
CPA's. This helped us gain an understanding of how different programs
were organized and operated. It also provided insight into the growth
and development periods different programs have gone through. We
continue to actively engage organizations in conversations about their
continuing education programs.
For example, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) is now in its
14th year of its program. We have been told that their program evolved
over approximately the first five years, before reaching a somewhat
stable program as now administered. While we do not expect a five year
evolutionary period for CM, it is reasonable to expect that the
program will continue to evolve for at least three years, or to a
point that we are halfway through our second two-year reporting cycle.
In the area of fees, for example, here is a comparison with the AIA‘s
requirements. The AICP “entry fee” for providers is $95 and includes
two credit hours. The AIA entry fee is $650 for non-profit providers
and $3,300 if the provider is a for-profit entity. In this comparison,
AICP is less expensive than AIA up to 66 hours of courses for
for-profit providers and up to 13 hours for non-profit providers. It
should also be stressed that AIA is a Trade Association, not a
research and educationally chartered organization as is APA. Our
structure and development of CM is in accordance with our non profit
educational status.
As we expect the program to evolve, this will likely include the
evolution of the fee structure as well. While the current fee
structure works for many providers and the fees are considerably less
than those of some other programs, we realized that the fee structure
does not meet all needs. This is the reality of trying to accommodate
providers who are as diverse as our members.
We have found the fee structure to be a challenge for many providers
who offer training for little or no registration fee, such as small
non profits, in-house training, and some federal agencies. Multi-day
workshops designed for very few attendees also do not match up well.
There are other events that historically bring in few planners, such
as scholarly societies (ACSP and the associations of geographers,
sociologists, etc), that would have little incentive to offer CM
credits with the current fee structure. We would like our members
attending these events to be able to claim credits for appropriate
sessions. Nonetheless, providers can register and test the success of
the program without committing resources at a level they feel
uncomfortable with. The Commission is committed to keeping the entry
barrier very low; thus, the $95 initial registration fee is far lower
than those of many organizations.
Exploring Alternatives
For these reasons, we are actively exploring alternative fee models
that will offer providers a chance to choose the fee system that works
best for them. This may include flat annual and daily fees, capped per
credit fees, and a variety of premium fee packages that will offer
advertising and marketing incentives. This is a work in progress but
through continued dialogue we are confident that we can find a way
that providers of all types can participate in this program. It should
be stressed that the CM program is adding value to providers both by
providing a standard for quality and by listing providers so that our
17,000 members can locate the many choices on our website. As noted,
those number more than 3,500 and they are growing weekly.
Universities as Partners
As part of our work, we have also continued to work with the
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) and have
implemented many ideas and suggestions from those conversations.
Conversations are continuing and more changes will be forthcoming. A
year ago, Sue Schwartz, Immediate Past-president of AICP, and Paul
Farmer, Executive Director and CEO, met with the deans and department
chairs of nearly 75 planning schools at the ACSP Administrators'
Conference. Sue and Paul addressed the entire gathering and also
worked with the ACSP Task Force on CM. Changes were made in the draft
CM program requirements as a result of those discussions.
At the ACSP meeting in Milwaukee this past fall, Paul Farmer met with
the ACSP Board and others in attendance at the board meeting (about 50
people) and discussed the program, ongoing educator concerns and
possible changes. Paul also met with the ACSP Task Force, with about
15 people in attendance. Many educators were surprised to learn about
the differences among the schools in terms of state laws and
university administrative regulations and it was agreed that APA would
work with a small number of schools identified by ACSP that would
serve as models and represent the range of differences identified in
our discussions in Milwaukee. Those conversations are continuing and
we expect that alternate fee proposals will address many of these
diverse needs.
Engaging Providers is a Top Priority
Since the AICP Commission approved the Certification Maintenance
program last April, a team of marketing, outreach, and AICP staff has
contacted and met with more than 700 training providers from around
the country to encourage them to register as CM providers. These
include providers who participated in our voluntary Continuing
Professional Development (CPD) program as well as providers suggested
to us by our members. Often these efforts have been fruitful, once
staff has the opportunity to walk through the program details and
explain the registration process. This often reduces misconceptions
about the program and allows staff to help the provider brainstorm how
CM can work within their training model. We have found that our
conversations with staff of potential providers often dispel fears and
clarify our program. Providers sometimes think that CM has been around
for years and we have just started charging providers. Others may
think that all of their courses would be eligible and quickly
calculate a number that is much higher than a more accurate figure.
When we explain the details, we’ve had providers conclude that one or
two additional AICP registrants would cover the fee. They have often
concluded that marginal revenues from additional attendees exceed the
marginal costs.
A Few Examples
For a modest conference of 86 attendees, 24 CM credits offered and a
$175 registration fee, only seven more registrants would be needed to
cover the $1,195 CM fee. For a conference of 291 attendees, 42 CM
credits offered and a $260 registration fee, only eight more
registrants in addition to the 291 would be needed to cover the $2,095
CM fee.
A two-day, 12-hour workshop that charges $425 per registrant will need
two additional registrants to cover the CM costs. Even with a cap on
attendance, it’s not an unlikely possibility. Our own 14-hour PTS
workshops saw a 76 percent increase in attendance last fall, from 78
to 137 total participants for the four courses. For Planetizen, or any
similar training provider, to register one of its four-hour online
courses ($99 per course) for CM credit, it will need to bring in just
two additional registrants per quarter. Its CM fee would be only two
percent of revenue for 100 attendees. With more than 17,000 AICP
members looking for training, it’s hard to understand how such
providers will be priced out of the market.
Bottom line: many providers see this as an opportunity rather than a
burden. Consider, for example, Lorman Education Services (a nationwide
provider) has registered more than 90 seminars and workshops for CM
credit, many of which fulfill the mandatory law requirement. The
National Charrette Institute has registered more than 20 activities,
including a 10-hour advanced Planner Certificate, available in
communities across the United States. RedVector.com, a leading
provider of computer based training, has registered numerous online
courses that will be available for AICP members for the entire 2008
period. ESRI has communicated its enthusiasm for CM and has begun
registering courses, with many more to come.
Every provider, including APA, has to register and meet the review
standards set by the Commission. This is a valued service to our
members and we will continue to strengthen our offerings. But APA
alone cannot fulfill the needs of all 17,000 AICP members – this is
neither realistic nor advantageous for the planning profession. We
encourage collaboration, partnerships, and creative solutions to fill
this educational need. This is the recipe for success of this program
and will only make our profession stronger. Planners value a
credential that is on par with those of similar professions.
Can we promise increased attendance? No, we can’t. No organization
administering a certification maintenance program can. But what we can
promise is that 17,000 + professional planners are actively looking
for relevant, high quality training; many of which did not do so in
the past. Consider that less than 2,000 AICP members participated in
the voluntary CPD program – that’s an 750 percent increase in demand.
And the number is growing – more than 1,000 planners registered for
the May 2008 exam. This is the highest registration AICP has ever
experienced. Young planners are hungry for the knowledge and training
that will help them tackle new challenges, and this program was
created to facilitate this.
Establishing Standards and Criteria
The recent opinion piece in Planetizen states that the CM program is
being operated under unfair approval procedures. This is simply
untrue. All providers, including APA and its chapters and divisions,
must follow the same registration and fee procedures, and CM credit is
not awarded automatically for any event. Decisions are based on a
clear set of standards and criteria set forth by the AICP Commission –
criteria by which every activity is judged. We encourage providers to
take a hard look at this set of criteria and decide what training
events are and are not appropriate for this program, and how the
educational objectives meet the needs of planners with at least two
years of experience. It is the AICP members themselves, and not
APA/AICP, who will be the ultimate judges of whether or not a provider
offers value to the profession. Through our online rating system,
members will have the opportunity to share comments and ideas (and
critiques) about training events. We hope providers will benefit from
this as well.
Challenges Ahead
The ideas outlined above are just a starting point. We as an
organization must work even harder to engage those providers who are
currently not signed up to ensure that members will be able to find
opportunities that best serve their own professional development
needs. These will be met by the growing list of providers of
increasing diversity of offerings – diverse in topics, geography and
delivery mechanisms. We are committed to making this program work well
for members and the communities they serve.
|
 |
|
 |

ILAPA News BLAST!
Illinois Planning News
Official Bi-Monthly Newsletter of the Illinois Chapter of the American
Planning Association
http://www.ilapa.org
Paula Freeze, Editor
editor@ilapa.org
THE ILAPA NEWS BLAST!
IS THE BI-MONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF
THE ILLINOIS CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION. OPINIONS
EXPRESSED IN THE ARTICLES OF THIS NEWSLETTER ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE
OPINIONS OF THE ILLINOIS CHAPTER, THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION,
OR THE EDITOR.
THE ILAPA NEWS BLAST!
HAS A CIRCULATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 1,500. |
 |
 |
|
|