Preparing Planners

Introduction

Emerging social problems such as urban inequality and climate change have increased the demand for planning professionals that possess a diverse skill set and can nimbly engage with different knowledge domains. One recent survey finds that more than 80 percent of employers, when hiring entry-level planners, prefer generalists with a breadth of knowledge about multiple dimensions of planning to those specialized in one aspect of planning (Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony 2015). While much is known about the types of planning skills utilized under different contexts, we have a limited understanding of how graduate planning education contributes to the skills that are utilized and whether graduate planning schools, which emphasize the training of “generalists with a specialty,” are producing generalists or specialists.

This paper draws upon data from a national survey of American Planning Association (APA) members to analyze the number and types of skills learned in graduate planning school that are utilized in day-to-day planning activities. Emphasis is placed on the contribution of a degree from a Planning Accreditation Board (PAB)–accredited graduate program to skill acquisition and use. Specifically, the paper addresses the following research questions: (1) Which planning skills obtained in graduate school are utilized in practice? (2) Does a degree from a PAB-accredited graduate planning school influence the types of skills utilized in practice? (3) Controlling for other determinants of skill acquisition and use, how do graduate school characteristics influence the number of skills acquired and utilized in practice?

The results suggest that skills pertaining to general planning knowledge are among those most commonly obtained and utilized in practice. Graduation from a PAB-accredited graduate planning program is associated with the utilization of a variety of skills in practice, particularly those pertaining to the core domains of planning knowledge. The importance of PAB accreditation holds in regression models that explain the total number of skills utilized in practice, controlling for other determinants of skill utilization. Comparing the magnitude of the impact of PAB accreditation with other factors, PAB accreditation has a larger impact on total skill utilization than a graduate program’s research productivity. These findings suggest that PAB accreditation standards encourage the production of the generalist planners sought by employers.

The paper begins with a discussion of empirical studies that have examined planning skill utilization in practice, emphasizing the role of graduate planning education and other contextual factors. Following is a discussion of the research methodology and the results from several descriptive and statistical analyses. The final two sections discuss the implications of the findings.

Background

The academic discourse on planning practice suggests that planners regularly draw upon different types of knowledge and skills to inform decision making in a complex policy environment. Patton, Sawicki, and Clark (2012) argue that planners and policy analysts must draw upon a variety of technical, communicative, and substantive skills to quickly evaluate and present facts and information to public decision makers. Innes (1996), in response to Altshuler’s (1965) critique of the comprehensive planning process, argues that the generality and multidisciplinarity of comprehensive planning practice is an asset that enables multiple interests to develop flexible alternatives to achieve policy goals. Innes (1996) proposes a new “communicative planning ideal” that requires planners with (1) substantive knowledge about the spatial, social, economic, political, and environmental systems of the city; (2) written and verbal communication skills and the ability to educate, negotiate with, and resolve conflicts among multiple publics; and (3) a range of technical skills that enable planners to quickly assess problems and facilitate decision making in a complex policy environment. Holden’s (2012, 313) critique of integrated sustainability planning characterizes planning knowledge as a form of social learning that “focuses on interlocution and building capacity to move between knowledge types and make the best use of different knowledge types for different purposes.”

Given that the types of knowledge and skills needed for planning practice are diverse and often context-dependent (Alexander 2001), US planning education has evolved to emphasize the training of “generalists with a specialty.” This paradigm, established by Perloff (1957) at a time when planning was expanding its scope beyond the design disciplines to the social sciences, reflects a balance between breadth and depth of knowledge. This view eventually became the model for the accreditation standards adopted by the PAB established in 1984 (Stiftel 2009). The current PAB standards reflect this balance, while emphasizing a practice-based approach to the application of a diverse knowledge base. The most recent accreditation standards, approved on April 14, 2012, reflect an expanding emphasis on performance metrics within specific planning domains. The document identifies “the essential knowledge, skills, and values central to the planning profession,” which include competencies in the areas of general planning knowledge, planning skills, and values and ethics (Planning Accreditation Board 2012).

Empirical evidence suggests that the core curriculum of most US planning schools is designed to train generalists with a specialty. A recent review of the core curriculum in thirty accredited planning schools within the United States and Canada finds that the majority of schools address a range of knowledge domains, including planning theory and history, urban history and theory, public and urban economics, legal aspects of planning, a workshop or studio experience, quantitative methods, and methods of planning and policy analysis (Edwards and Bates 2011). Dalton (2007) finds that a large majority of planners surveyed (88 percent) value breadth of knowledge in practice, agreeing with the statement that “good planning requires generalists who are able to integrate perspectives from a number of specializations.”

If US planning education emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge and skills across multiple domains, then which types of knowledge and skills do planners need most to become effective practitioners? Several recent studies of skill utilization in practice point to the importance of written and verbal communication skills over more technical skills such as statistics, data manipulation, and economic analysis. Ozawa and Seltzer (1999) surveyed 143 senior planners responsible for hiring decisions in Oregon and Washington to identify the skills and competencies that were sought among new hires. Communication skills were the most highly ranked, while technical skills such as linear regression, microeconomic theory, and GIS were ranked much lower in importance. Seltzer and Ozawa (2002) expanded the sample frame to include planners from California, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey. The 2002 results largely confirmed their earlier study, also citing the importance of working well with colleagues and the general public. A more recent study by Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony (2015) that relies on a national survey of planning practitioners and educators finds that written and oral communication skills are seen as highly important by both practitioners and educators. The authors also found evidence of divergence between practitioners and educators in the importance placed on economic techniques, original information retrieval, community organizing, and management skills.

How does planning education contribute to the acquisition and use of the knowledge and skills valued in practice? A session of the 2010 ACSP conference entitled “Assessing Planning Education” presented the results of American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)– and APA-sponsored surveys that provide insights into the influence of planning education on skill utilization in practice. Hoch (2010) reported the results from the 2007 APA jobs survey and found tasks related to communication and plan making to be among the most common skills employed in planning practice. The survey also addressed the extent to which various planning knowledge domains were acquired through graduate education versus other venues. Planning schools were found to contribute to about half of currently utilized planning knowledge, with planning schools contributing most to knowledge about planning history and theory.

Other studies examine the influence of planning education on knowledge and skills utilized in practice by comparing the supply and demand for particular types of knowledge and skills. Early studies by Isserman (1975, 1977), Kruekeberg (1978) emphasize the supply and demand for various quantitative research methods, such as statistical analysis, forecasting, and economic methods. Contant and Forkenbrock (1986) found evidence of growth in the demand for quantitative methods since these earlier surveys and a congruence between the supply and demand for such knowledge. An exception was multivariate statistics and economic analysis techniques, which were more highly supplied by planning programs than were demanded by practitioners. Kaufman and Simons (1995) conducted a follow-up study to assess supply and demand for a similar set of quantitative skills and found a lower correspondence between supply and demand, with planning schools less likely to teach what practitioners practiced. Ferguson (2008) reviews these earlier studies and finds that since the mid-1980s, the supply of and demand for quantitative research methods has been quite stable. The most recent supply and demand study by Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony (2015) examines a range of skills and knowledge and finds that while US planning education is largely responsive to the changing needs of the planning profession, this correspondence is much higher for written and oral communication skills than for other skills such as economic techniques, original information retrieval, community organizing, and management.

In addition to planning education, one’s professional context influences the types of knowledge and skills used in practice. Dalton (2007) relies on survey data from more than 1,800 planners drawn from alumni lists and planner associations to assess the differences in skill utilization across employment sectors. The author finds that while planners working for general purpose governments are more likely to be involved in traditional physical planning activities and engaged with the public, private sector planners are engaged in more specialized technical planning activities. Guzzetta and Bollens (2003) surveyed 638 professionals working in the fields of “urban planning and in affiliated fields” within Southern California to assess which job skills are valued most, emphasizing comparisons between those working in planning, planning-related, and non-planning occupations. Planners were identified as those self-identifying with the label, whereas those in planning-related fields were defined as those working in fields “(1) related explicitly to the built or natural environment and (2) typically described as specializations in planning academic literature” (Guzzetta and Bollens 2003, 106). Non-planners include those with no connection to the built or natural environment. The authors find that communication and presentation skills are highly valued by planning, planning-related, and non-planning occupations. Quantitative analysis skills are valued at a much lower level across each of these employment sectors. Planners are more likely to value report-writing and communication skills along with knowledge of policy and legal context than are non-planners.

Several studies point to the importance of experience in shaping the skills utilized in practice. Guzzetta and Bollens (2003) find that while technical and quantitative skills do not vary substantially with a planner’s years of experience, planners’ valuation of communication and public understanding skills increase with experience. Ozawa, Seltzer, and Iroz-Elardo (2010) compare the results of the Seltzer and Ozawa (2002) survey cited above with a 2007 AICP Jobs Survey and find that while basic analytical skills and understanding of planning dynamics is important for entry-level planners, management skills and knowledge of political dynamics become more important as planners gain more experience. Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony (2015) examine the joint influence of years of experience and community growth trajectories and find that each of these factors influence the demand for different types of skills. The authors find that grant writing, evaluation, and data analysis skills are more important to senior planners in communities facing population decline.

Although it has not been addressed by the studies cited above, one could argue that AICP certification also influences the breadth of skills acquired in graduate school and utilized in practice. The AICP was created in 1978 when the American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO) and American Institute of Planners (AIP) merged to form the American Planning Association. The AICP certification was intended to formalize the profession’s unique knowledge base, encourage continuing education, and promote adherence to a code of ethics. Prior to the establishment of the AICP, all AIP members were required to take an oral exam. The first two questions directly reflected the AIP’s emphasis on educating generalists with a specialty: (1) “Discuss the comprehensive planning process in general” and (2) “Explain how your area of concentration relates to the other substantive elements of the planning process” (Meck 1998). The current written exam retains this emphasis on breadth of knowledge, spanning topics including planning history, theory, and law; plan making and implementation; functional areas of practice; spatial scales of practice; public participation and social justice; and the AICP Code of Ethics (American Institute of Certified Planners 2013). Although graduation from a graduate planning program is not a required prerequisite for AICP certification, planners who pursue a graduate degree with the goal of eventually seeking certification may be more likely to pursue a generalist curriculum while in graduate school and cultivate this generalist knowledge base after graduation to increase the probability of passing the AICP exam. Maintenance of AICP certification also requires that those certified receive ongoing continuing education credits, which may further reinforce the maintenance of a diverse skill set even after passing the AICP exam.

To summarize, while early studies generally pointed to a congruence between the supply of and demand for planning skills and knowledge, more recent evidence suggests that particular advanced quantitative techniques such as statistics and economic analysis are more heavily supplied by planning programs than are demanded by practitioners (Kaufman and Simmons 1995; Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony 2015). Evidence also suggests that years of experience, employment sector, and community context influence skill utilization in practice. Most of the studies cited above examine individual skill utilization, and with the exception of Dalton (2007) and Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony (2015), rarely address whether graduate planning education achieves its mission to train generalists that utilize a broad range of skills in practice. Furthermore, none of these studies have examined the influence of AICP certification, which may also incentivize the acquisition of a diverse skill base by standardizing the breadth of professional competencies required for certification. This study contributes to this body of literature by examining the acquisition and utilization of a wide range of planning skills, paying particular attention to the role of graduation from a PAB-accredited planning program.

Research Methodology

The Survey

The data for this study come from an online survey of the APA membership conducted in the summer of 2013. The purpose of the survey was to identify which skills obtained in graduate school were utilized in day-to-day activities by practicing planners. All respondents were presented with a list of twenty-eight skills commonly taught in graduate planning programs. From the items listed, respondents were asked to identify those skills obtained in graduate school that were utilized and valued the most in day-to-day activities. For each skill, respondents were asked to select one of the following options: (1) skill not utilized, (2) skill utilized somewhat, or (3) skill utilized often. If the skill was not obtained in graduate school, respondents were asked to select “skill not obtained in graduate school.” The list of skills was drawn from previous research identified above, the most recent PAB accreditation document (Planning Accreditation Board 2012), and discussions with APA and several local planners and academics. The list of skills provided to respondents is shown in Table 1 below and includes a range of skills pertaining to general planning knowledge, verbal and written communication, and technical skills (the list posed to respondents on the survey was not categorized).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Planning Skills Assessed.

General planning knowledge

Understanding of the rationale for and purposes of planning

Understanding of the planning process and connections between planning and implementation

Understanding of the ethical dimensions of urban planning, including awareness of the AICP Code of Ethics

Understanding of the legal context within which planning occurs

Understanding of the history of the planning profession

Understanding of basic economic theory and its application to planning

Understanding of the political context within which planning occurs

Understanding of environmental processes and the interactions between the built environment, human activity, and environmental change

Verbal/written communication

Ability to write brief in-house memos

Ability to write reports and lengthier documents

Ability to write informative, engaging short pieces (e.g., brochures) for the general public

Ability to speak formally and informally with elected officials

Ability to speak to members of the general public in public forums

Ability to manage and negotiate conflicts among different groups

Technical skills

Familiarity with basic data-processing methods and software

Familiarity with statistical analysis methods and software

Competency in GIS and spatial analysis

Competency in social networking applications and their use in public engagement

Familiarity with website development methods and software

Familiarity with qualitative analysis methods

Ability to develop demographic and economic forecasts

Familiarity with graphic design methods and software

Familiarity with scenario planning methods and software

Ability to develop and maintain budgets

Ability to interpret and use land records and blueprints

Ability to read a developer’s pro forma

Ability to read a zoning code and interpret its case-related application

Competency in site analysis and design

The survey was distributed via APA’s Interact e-newsletter on June 5. Two follow-up reminders were sent in subsequent Interact e-mails on June 12 and July 3, and APA assisted with additional follow-ups with state APA chapters. An average of 31,765 APA members received the e-mail over this period. Of these, an average of 8,153 (26 percent) opened the e-mail, and 998 subsequently completed the survey, generating an effective response rate (as a percentage of those opening the e-mail) of 12 percent. This response rate is not unusual for online e-mail-based surveys. The low response rate may also reflect the fact that less than half of APA’s members hold a master’s degree in planning (Dalton 2007).

The survey posed a range of questions about the educational background of respondents, planners’ demographic characteristics, and characteristics of the primary jurisdiction where the planner worked. The analysis summarized in this paper includes only those respondents who responded affirmatively to the question “Did you receive a master’s degree in a planning or planning-related field?” Two final questions asked planners to identify the university and degree program from which their master’s degree was obtained. This information was used to match respondents to their graduate planning program. The final sample of 796 respondents includes those who had self-identified as having obtained a master’s degree in a planning or planning-related field and who provided valid information on the university and degree program from which their master’s degree was obtained.

On average, the respondents to the survey have acquired approximately twenty of the twenty-eight listed skills in graduate school and utilized an average of sixteen in practice. The largest fraction of the respondents are white, male, between thirty-one and forty years of age, have between one and five years of planning experience, and hold an AICP certification. Land use is the most frequent specialization cited, and the largest percentage work in local or regional planning organizations located in the midwest. Regarding the characteristics of the graduate schools from which the respondents graduated, most planning programs are PAB accredited and housed in public Research I universities. These and other characteristics of the sample are summarized in Appendix Table A1.

Results

Table 2 displays the percentage of respondents who had obtained a given skill in graduate school and of those, the percentage who subsequently utilized each skill in their day-to-day planning activities. Also displayed is the difference between the percentage of skills obtained and the percentage utilized. Skills (or differences) ranked in the top ten within a given column are noted by the superscript “a.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Planning Skills Obtained in Graduate School and Utilized in Planning Practice.

Skill	Obtained (%)	Utilized (%)	Difference
General planning knowledge
Understanding of the rationale for and purposes of planning	94 a	90 a	4
Understanding of the planning process and connections between planning and implementation	86 a	84 a	2
Understanding of the ethical dimensions of urban planning, including awareness of the AICP Code of Ethics	76	65 a	11
Understanding of the legal context within which planning occurs	92 a	86 a	6
Understanding of the history of the planning profession	94 a	59	35 a
Understanding of basic economic theory and its application to planning	88 a	76 a	12
Understanding of the political context within which planning occurs	75	73 a	1
Understanding of environmental processes and the interactions between the built environment, human activity, and environmental change	86 a	81 a	6
Verbal/written communication
Ability to write brief in-house memos	60	57	3
Ability to write reports and lengthier documents	84 a	81 a	3
Ability to write informative, engaging short pieces (e.g., brochures) for the general public	60	53	6
Ability to speak formally and informally with elected officials	57	55	3
Ability to speak to members of the general public in public forums	64	60	4
Ability to manage and negotiate conflicts among different groups	57	51	5
Technical skills
Familiarity with basic data processing methods and software	83	76 a	6
Familiarity with statistical analysis methods and software	90 a	64	26 a
Competency in GIS and spatial analysis	74	64	10
Competency in social networking applications and their use in public engagement	35	21	14 a
Familiarity with website development methods and software	28	12	17 a
Familiarity with qualitative analysis methods	90 a	75 a	15 a
Ability to develop demographic and economic forecasts	85 a	60	25 a
Familiarity with graphic design methods and software	51	39	13 a
Familiarity with scenario planning methods and software	49	27	22 a
Ability to develop and maintain budgets	41	31	10
Ability to interpret and use land records and blueprints	60	53	7
Ability to read a developer’s pro forma	51	32	19 a
Ability to read a zoning code and interpret its case-related application	70	58	12 a
Competency in site analysis and design	72	61	11

Note: N = 787.

a

Skill (or difference) ranked in the top ten within a given column.

Seven of the skills within the top ten of those acquired are also within the top ten skills utilized in practice, which suggests that graduate schools are preparing students with skills that are utilized in practice. Among all skills, those pertaining to general planning knowledge are among those most commonly obtained and utilized in practice. Report-writing skills, data-processing skills, and qualitative analysis skills are also among those highly utilized. These results suggest that planners rely on a range of skills in practice, reflecting the generalist nature of planning work. On the other hand, Table 2 also presents evidence of a divergence between the rates of acquisition and use for planning history and several technical skills, suggesting that while these skills are acquired in graduate school, they are underutilized in practice.

Table 3 summarizes the results of difference-of-proportions tests that compare the rates of skill utilization for PAB graduates with those graduating from programs that have not obtained PAB accreditation. Skills ranked in the top 10 of skills utilized are noted by the superscript “a.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Skills Utilized in Practice by Type of Skill and PAB Graduation Status.

Skill	PAB (%)	No PAB (%)	Difference	p-Value (2-Tailed)
General planning knowledge
Understanding of the rationale for and purposes of planning a	93	80	13	0.000
Understanding of the planning process and connections between planning and implementation a	85	78	7	0.035
Understanding of the ethical dimensions of urban planning, including awareness of the AICP Code of Ethics a	70	45	26	0.000
Understanding of the legal context within which planning occurs a	88	77	11	0.000
Understanding of the history of the planning profession	61	51	10	0.014
Understanding of basic economic theory and its application to planning a	77	74	2	0.526
Understanding of the political context within which planning occurs a	73	73	1	0.863
Understanding of environmental processes and the interactions between the built environment, human activity, and environmental change a	83	74	8	0.016
Verbal/written communication
Ability to write brief in-house memos	58	56	2	0.655
Ability to write reports and lengthier documents a	82	77	5	0.172
Ability to write informative, engaging short pieces (e.g., brochures) for the general public	54	52	2	0.603
Ability to speak formally and informally with elected officials	54	56	−2	0.575
Ability to speak to members of the general public in public forums	61	54	7	0.087
Ability to manage and negotiate conflicts among different groups	54	42	12	0.007
Technical skills
Familiarity with basic data processing methods and software a	79	67	12	0.001
Familiarity with statistical analysis methods and software	63	66	−3	0.419
Competency in GIS and spatial analysis	68	51	16	0.000
Competency in social networking applications and their use in public engagement	21	19	3	0.468
Familiarity with website development methods and software	12	11	1	0.681
Familiarity with qualitative analysis methods a	75	76	−1	0.834
Ability to develop demographic and economic forecasts	60	59	1	0.839
Familiarity with graphic design methods and software	41	31	9	0.025
Familiarity with scenario planning methods and software	28	23	5	0.203
Ability to develop and maintain budgets	27	46	−19	0.000
Ability to interpret and use land records and blueprints	53	51	3	0.499
Ability to read a developer’s pro forma	33	26	8	0.053
Ability to read a zoning code and interpret its case-related application	59	55	4	0.333
Competency in site analysis and design	64	50	14	0.001

Note: Bold p values <.05.

a

Skill ranked in the top ten of those utilized in practice.

The evidence presented in Table 3 suggests that PAB programs contribute to the utilization of a range of planning skills in practice, particularly those related to general planning knowledge. ³ Six of the eight general planning knowledge skills reported in Table 3 are more likely to be utilized in practice by graduates of PAB-accredited planning programs. All of these with the exception of “understanding the history of the planning profession” are also among the top 10 of skills utilized in practice. Given that knowledge of planning history was shown in Table 2 to be utilized at a much lower rate compared to its acquisition rate, this finding suggests that if knowledge of planning history is acquired in a PAB-accredited graduate program, this knowledge is more likely to inform practice. Negotiation skills are the only communication skill more commonly utilized among PAB graduates. Regarding technical skills, PAB graduates are more likely to utilize skills pertaining to data processing, GIS, graphic design, and site design and significantly less likely to utilize budgeting skills in practice.

Table 4 presents the results of two regression models that explain both the total number of skills obtained and the total number of skills utilized in practice. The first regression omits characteristics that were likely obtained after graduation from planning school, since these factors should have no bearing on the skills obtained while in school. ⁴

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Poisson Regression Results, Skills Obtained and Utilized in Practice.

	Skills Obtained		Skills Utilized
	Coefficient	p Value	Coefficient	p Value
Planner characteristics
Constant	−6.234	0.048	1.190	0.817
Year planning degree acquired	0.005	0.003	0.001	0.739
Race (white = 1)	−0.030	0.364	−0.021	0.583
Gender (male = 1)	0.082	0.000	0.089	0
Age (categorical)	−0.025	0.067	−0.016	0.313
AICP			0.055	0.018
Years of planning experience (categorical)	–	–	−0.008	0.539
Responsible for hiring	–	–	0.017	0.455
Land use specialization	–	–	0.032	0.178
Transportation specialization	–	–	−0.044	0.062
Environmental/natural resources specialization	–	–	0.004	0.888
Economic development specialization	–	–	0.072	0.002
GIS specialization	–	–	0.066	0.009
Nonprofit organization	–	–	−0.148	0.009
Local/regional planning organization	–	–	0.014	0.667
State/federal government organization	–	–	0.025	0.566
Private sector organization	–	–	−0.006	0.868
Jurisdiction characteristics
Northeast US region	–	–	−0.055	0.162
Midwest US region	–	–	−0.071	0.008
West US region	–	–	−0.115	0
Population <100,000	–	–	−0.012	0.604
Jurisdiction residents opposed to growth	–	–	0.002	0.952
Jurisdiction residents in favor of growth	–	–	0.057	0.051
Graduate program characteristics
Private university	0.001	0.985	0.010	0.819
Carnegie Research I	−0.163	0.145	−0.130	0.312
Carnegie Research II	−0.158	0.160	−0.140	0.283
Carnegie Doctoral	−0.180	0.123	−0.150	0.266
Carnegie Masters	0.003	0.984	−0.010	0.945
Number of faculty	−0.004	0.158	−0.006	0.065
Percentage of faculty full professor	−0.125	0.051	−0.035	0.63
Total faculty publications	2.48E-04	0.787	0.001	0.618
Percentage of faculty who publish	−0.051	0.376	−0.060	0.357
Citations by faculty	1.69E-05	0.102	2.39E-05	0.036
Planning program PAB accredited	0.206	0.001	0.169	0.018
N	618		591
Log likelihood	−1905.59		−1855.28
Likelihood ratio (LR) χ2	107.89		125.33
P-value (LR χ2 test)	0		0
Cragg & Uhler’s pseudo-R2	0.16		0.19

Several characteristics are significantly associated with skill acquisition. Males report a higher number of skills obtained. Younger planners that have acquired their graduate degrees more recently obtain a larger number of skills (p < .10). Few graduate school characteristics are associated with skill acquisition, with the exception of the seniority of the planning faculty (p < .10) and graduation from a PAB-accredited planning program. Programs with a larger percentage of full professors contribute negatively to skill acquisition. PAB accreditation, on the other hand, is positively associated with skill acquisition at a high level of statistical significance.

Generally speaking, a different set of demographic characteristics influences skill utilization. Gender is significantly associated with skill utilization, with males reporting a larger number of skills utilized, but age and years since the acquisition of a planning degree are not. Planners in two specializations (GIS and economic development) utilize a larger number of skills in practice, while planners employed in transportation utilize fewer skills (p < .10). Those employed in the nonprofit sector also utilize fewer skills in practice. Regarding jurisdictional characteristics, those working in the West and Midwest rely on fewer skills, while those working in pro-growth jurisdictions rely on a larger number of skills (p < .10).

AICP certification, the number of citations from planning faculty, and PAB certification are all positively associated with skill utilization. This provides evidence of the importance of graduate school research productivity, accreditation, and professional certification towards skill acquisition and use. Programs with a smaller faculty size are also positively associated with skill utilization (p < .10). Given recent debates concerning the inability of smaller programs to meet the recently revised PAB standards adopted in 2012, the findings regarding faculty size have important implications, as discussed below.

How large are these impacts? To get a more complete picture of the magnitudes of the graduate school productivity, PAB accreditation, and AICP certification effects, Table 5 presents the results of several simulations using the second regression model in Table 4 explaining the total number of skills utilized in practice. ⁵ Considering that the model predicts that the average respondent utilizes 16.6 of the 28 listed skills in practice, the marginal effect of a standardized change in faculty citations is rather small. If the average graduate faculty with 732 citations increases by 1 standard deviation to 1967 (a raw increase of 1,235 citations), the impact is to increase the number of skills ultimately utilized in practice by only 0.5. AICP certification has a somewhat larger impact of 0.8. The largest impact (2.6) comes from graduation from a PAB-accredited planning program. If a planner holds a PAB-accredited degree and AICP certification, the number of skills increases by 3.5.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Total Number of Skills Utilized under Different Scenarios.

	Predicted Value	Marginal Effect
1. Mean prediction	16.6
2. One standard deviation increase from mean in citations	17.1	2 vs 1: 0.5
3. No PAB degree or AICP certification	14.1
4. AICP certification, no PAB degree	14.9	4 vs 3: 0.8
5. PAB degree, no AICP certification	16.7	5 vs 3: 2.6
6. PAB and AICP certification	17.6	6 vs 3: 3.5

Note: PAB = Planning Accreditation Board; AICP = American Institute of Certified Planners.

Discussion

The evidence presented above suggests that knowledge about the unique domain of planning practice, including its rationale and social, economic, political, legal, ethical, and environmental bases, is utilized in practice, and PAB accreditation standards contribute to the utilization of these forms of knowledge. The findings also suggest that general planning knowledge is more highly utilized in practice than most communication skills. Technical skills related to data processing and qualitative methods are highly utilized in practice, but there is evidence of a divergence between the rates of acquisition and use for several technical skills and for knowledge of planning history. One possible reason for this discrepancy is a divergence between the planning academy and planning practice as it relates to particular types of skills (Myers and Banerjee 2005; Edwards and Bates 2011). Alternatively, it may be more difficult for planners to identify how knowledge of the planning profession’s history comes into play on a day-to-day basis. Despite this divergence, the evidence presented above suggests that if knowledge of planning history is acquired in a PAB-accredited graduate program, this knowledge is more likely to inform practice. Furthermore, a large majority of skills within the top ten of those acquired are also highly utilized, which suggests that graduate schools are preparing students with skills that inform practice. This finding may reflect PAB’s recent efforts to ensure the improved quality of professional education. The findings counter the claims of critics who argue that university-based education does not properly or adequately prepare students for professional work.

Several of the factors examined by previous researchers are shown to contribute to skill utilization, including planning specialization, employment sector, and community size and growth context. Those specializing in economic development and GIS utilize a larger number of skills in practice, while those specializing in transportation utilize fewer skills in practice. The lower number of skills reported by transportation planners possibly reflects the more specialized nature of their work. Those specializing in GIS, on the other hand, may be more likely to specialize in other arenas, such as land use planning. Those employed in the nonprofit sector also utilize fewer skills in practice, consistent with research cited above which suggests that the employees in such sectors may rely on more specialized skills and deal less frequently with the public. Regarding the importance of jurisdictional characteristics, those working in the West and Midwest rely on fewer skills, while those working in pro-growth jurisdictions rely on a larger number of skills. This suggests that professional context influences the degree of skill utilization, as suggested by Guzzetta and Bollens (2003) and Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony (2015).

This research also presents evidence of other factors influencing skill acquisition and use not reported in previous work. While younger and more recent graduates acquire a larger number of skills in graduate school, neither age nor experience is associated with the number of skills utilized in practice, in contrast to the evidence presented by Guzzetta and Bollens (2003), Ozawa, Seltzer, and Iroz-Elardo (2010), and Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony (2015), who find that the types of skills utilized in practice varies with experience. The evidence presented above also suggests that men utilize a larger number of skills in practice, possibly because of the underrepresentation of women in certain positions, planning specializations, or employment sectors (Hoch 2010; Dalton 2007). To the extent that the work performed by women receives less recognition than similar work performed by male colleagues, or to the extent that women are assigned to tasks or positions requiring skills that are more difficult to quantify (Stewart 1990; Fox and Schuhmann 1999), women may also understate the significance of certain skills utilized in practice. Further research is needed to understand the role that each of these factors plays in skill utilization over the course of one’s career.

Finally, while both a PAB-accredited degree and AICP certification are each positively associated with the number of skills utilized in practice, the magnitude of the impact of a PAB-accredited degree is much larger. PAB accreditation also has a larger impact than a graduate school’s research productivity. These findings suggest that PAB accreditation may play an important role in reducing the mismatch between the supply of and demand for planning skills and knowledge.

Several caveats should be considered when interpreting these results. First, the survey only examined those holding membership in the APA. Thus, the sample may not be generalizable to the larger population of employed planners. Second, the use of an online survey instrument induces some selection bias, oversampling those with computer access and who have an interest in taking the time to complete the survey online. The sample’s descriptive statistics suggest that the sample is not representative of certain types of planners, particularly planners from minority racial groups. The analyses rely on self-reported information on skill acquisition and use, which is less reliable than objective data on the actual competencies acquired in graduate school and tasks performed in practice. Finally, the analysis relies on now somewhat-dated data from Stiftel, Rukmana, and Alam (2004) to identify the characteristics of respondents’ graduate schools. It is possible that schools’ research productivity and PAB accreditation status have changed before or after the respondents’ graduation date. Thus, the findings reported above rely on the assumption that graduate school productivity has remained fairly constant over the analysis period.

Conclusion

This study examined data from a sample of American Planning Association members to identify the skills obtained in graduate school and utilized in planning practice, emphasizing the role of graduate planning education in skill utilization. Among all skills, those pertaining to general planning knowledge are among those most commonly obtained and utilized in practice. Report writing skills, data processing skills, and qualitative analysis skills are also among those highly utilized in practice. These results suggest that planners rely on a range of skills in practice, reflecting the diverse nature of planning work. The findings also point to gaps in the rates of skill acquisition versus utilization. Knowledge of planning history and a number of technical skills are among those that are highly acquired but underutilized in practice.

Graduation from a PAB-accredited planning program is associated with the utilization of several highly ranked skills, particularly skills pertaining to general planning knowledge and technical skills unique to the planning profession. The evidence also suggests that PAB accreditation plays a role in reducing the underutilization of planning history knowledge in practice. With the exception of negotiation skills, graduates of PAB-accredited programs are no more likely than graduates of other programs to utilize communication skills in practice. Because of the importance of communication skills cited by previous research (Ozawa and Seltzer 1999; Seltzer and Ozawa 2002; Guzzetta and Bollens 2003; Greenlee, Edwards, and Anthony 2015), this finding suggests that future revisions of PAB criteria should pay attention to the manner in which graduate programs prepare planners for communicative practice.

Both PAB accreditation and AICP certification contribute to skill utilization, controlling for individual characteristics, jurisdictional characteristics, and measures of graduate school quality. Compared to the average planner not holding a PAB-accredited degree or AICP certification, adding AICP certification increases the number of skills utilized by 0.8, while adding a PAB-accredited degree increases the number of skills utilized by 2.6. These findings suggest that both professional certification and graduate school accreditation contribute to the production of practitioners that utilize a diverse set of skills and knowledge in practice.

These findings have implications for planning education. The evidence from this study suggests that planners utilize and value the generalist planning knowledge provided by planning schools over more specialized technical skills. Much of this knowledge forms the basis for PAB accreditation and AICP certification standards. In an era when many planning programs are facing demands to specialize and offer more technical skills training, these results point to the benefits of providing a solid foundation in knowledge about the built environment and its systems. This study also finds that planners in more specialized domains such as economic development and GIS utilize a range of skills in practice. Emerging complex social problems, new forms of public engagement, and growing economic divisions will continue to require that “generalists with a specialty” rise beyond their specialty and think more broadly.

The findings also have implications for ongoing debates surrounding PAB accreditation standards. Just prior to the adoption of the last PAB standards, ACSP member schools provided feedback on the draft recommendations, and the ACSP Governing Board formally adopted the recommended standards on April 14, 2012. Several issues were raised during the deliberations, but perhaps the most contentious issue was the difficulty of smaller programs to meet new minimum faculty size requirements and satisfy new reporting requirements. The findings from this study suggest that smaller programs produce students that utilize a larger number of skills in practice than do larger programs. Given the impact of PAB accreditation on student skill utilization, this suggests that future debates surrounding PAB standards should reflect the important contribution of these smaller programs and not place an undue compliance burden on such programs.