Spring 2000

Training Programs for Citizen Planners

by Michael Chandler

Anecdotal evidence from the past few years suggests that a score of training initiatives for citizen planners dot the landscape. In order to test this hypothesis, the APA asked Virginia Tech to conduct a national survey to determine the scope of citizen planner training programs presently available.

The resulting survey design focused on five clusters or themes. They were as follows:

1. Training Format. This cluster sought information regarding the way training is presented, how often training is offered, and who sponsors the training.
2. Target Audience. This cluster focused on the clients of the training and whether they were new commissioners, veteran commissioners, or both.
3. Topics/Subjects Covered. This cluster formed the heart of the survey. Each respondent was asked to identify the subject matter covered during training.
4. Use of Educational Materials. This cluster asked respondents if educational materials were featured during training and whether training outlines and training agendas are used.
5. Program Evaluation. This cluster inquired about the methodology used to evaluate and update training programs for citizen planners.

Once the survey design was finalized, the instrument was sent to a wide array of planning organizations and planning affiliated groups. Specifically, the survey was sent to the following entities:

• State Municipal Leagues and Leagues of Counties
• APA Chapter Presidents
• AICP Professional Development Officers (PDO)
• APA Planning Official Development Officers (PODO)
• Accredited schools of planning and/or public affairs
• Cooperative Extension Service programs.

In each instance, the recipient was asked to complete the survey if they possessed the requisite knowledge. If this was not possible, the recipient was asked to forward the survey to the person in their organization who would be able to complete the questionnaire. Over 300 survey forms were mailed to the groups listed above.

Survey Respondents

A total of 152 surveys were returned. Of these 67 provided information on training programs, while the remaining 85 replied that they had no training program. This rate of return was a respectable 50%.

As the following table details, APA respondents, specifically Chapter Presidents, formed the single largest cluster of respondents. Municipal/County Leagues, followed by planning schools, and an assortment of state and regional agencies and associations completed the pool of respondents. For ease of reporting, the respondents are clustered according to the following response categories: APA, Higher Education, Municipal/County League and State/ Regional Agencies and Associations.

Two types of training programs were not recorded in this survey. The first is programs conducting by planning agencies. The second is programs undertaken by national organizations such as the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions in Athens, Georgia.

Table 1. Survey Respondents by Category

• APA Respondents (23)
  

• Higer Education Respondents (21)

• Municipal/County League Respondents (12)

• State/Regional Agencies and Associations (11)

Survey Results

As previously noted, the survey focused on five themes associated with training programs for citizen planners.

Training Format. Nearly three-fourths (73.1%) of respondents use workshops and seminars for training as the training fits within a three-to-six-hour block of time. This one day training is usually cost-effective. Fees for attendees averaged approximately $35.00 per participant and generally included refreshment breaks, meals, and training materials.

The conference format is favored when the training program requires two or more days of instruction. These programs require a substantial fee. The Virginia Certified Planning Commissioners Program, for example, costs $325.00 per person. The fee covers all resource materials used in the program, as well as participant meals and refreshment breaks for four days. The fee does not cover overnight lodging or travel costs.

The survey also investigated scheduling--were training programs offered on a regular schedule or developed in response to a request. A wide margin of respondents replied that training was offered on a regular basis. Training sessions sponsored by the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission and Penn State University are representative of this approach. Rather than wait for training requests, both organizations have developed learning modules that are offered on a regular basis at different venues.

The ability to respond to training requests that are of a specialized, or unique, nature is also important. A few respondents structure their training this way. "Hot topic" discussion groups, for example, are featured in training programs sponsored by the Arizona Department of Commerce, the Oregon Planners Training Team, as well as many of the planning schools and most cooperative extension programs.

Slight preferences emerged on the timing of the training. Both annual basis and semi-annual training is also popular. Finally, approximately half (56% to 39%) train in partnership with one or more program sponsors. The "partners" most frequently cited are state APA chapters. State Municipal Leagues, state planning agencies, and citizen planning associations are willing partners as well.

Target Audience. Most training (61% versus 50%) is designed for the new planning commissioner. This, of course, makes a great deal of sense due to the fact that many people appointed to a local planning commission have no real idea of what is in store for them. Most state APA chapter, planning schools, and cooperative extension training programs focus on new member training.

It is important to note that various state/regional agencies and associations, (as well as selected planning schools), feature extensive and well-balanced training initiatives for both rookie and veteran commissioners. The Oregon Planners Team, the Minnesota Planning Association, and the Monroe County (NY) Planning Council serve as good models.

Use of Educational Materials. A feature common of training initiatives is the supplemental study or educational materials. More than 90 percent of the respondents use educational materials. In some cases, the materials are handouts, and in other situations, participants use a training manual that may be several inches thick. Citizen planner training programs offered in California, Texas, Iowa and Alaska feature this manual approach.

Most respondents (73%) use training agendas and course outlines. In fact, a significant percent of the survey respondents stated their training outlines double as self- mailers that can be used to advertise the program.

Program Evaluation. Nearly two-thirds (64.1%) of the programs provide an opportunity for attendees to critique the program at its conclusion. In addition, two-thirds (67.1%) of the respondents review and update their training programs on a regular basis. Roughly a third of the respondents (34%) reviewed their programs once a year, while 36 percent said they update their training at the conclusion of each session.

Subject Matter Covered

Table 2: Subject Matter covered During Commissioner Training (67)

Table 2 lists the subject matter featured covered in training programs. As can be discerned, the most common subject is the powers and duties of the planning commission. Next are zoning practices, the principles and practices of planning, and planning and zoning law. The content needs to be in a local land use plan was also rated high as a training topic.

It is important to note that in the survey I used the term "technical training" by design. Indeed, a quick scan of planning enabling statutes reveals that in most states the responsibility for developing a local comprehensive plan rests with the local planning commission. Thus, it is essential that planning commissioners understand the technical principles and practices underpinning planning, in addition to understanding their powers and duties as commissioners.

Additional technical training in the form of subdivision practices and site plan review are featured in many training programs. Somewhat surprising is the seemingly limited amount of training being offered on capital improvements programming (40.2%).

The second training theme addresses the human side of planning, such as meeting management, decision making, and public participation skills. As noted, slightly more than half of the respondents stated they offered training on these topics.

In order to gain a more complete understanding of the scope of subjects covered during training, consult Tables 3 through 5. Table 3 isolates the subject matter covered in APA sponsored training programs, while Tables 4 and 5 document the subject matter covered in training programs sponsored by higher education entities, the array of municipal leagues, and state/regional agencies and associations.

Table 3: APA Respondents (23)

Table 3 highlights the subject matter APA respondents include in their training. As might be expected, a heavy emphasis is placed on the technical side of planning. For example, over 90 percent of the APA sponsored training programs review the powers and duties of the planning commission, planning and zoning law, zoning practices, and the principles and practices of planning.

Table 3 also reveals the high priority APA sponsored training programs place on helping citizen planners learn how they can perform their duties in a manner that is both efficient and effective.

Table 4: Higher Education Respondents (21)

Table 5: Municpal Leagues, State/Regional Agencies, and Associations (23)

Tables 4 and 5 document the subject matter higher education respondents and state municipal league and state associations place on training. As Table 4 shows, the higher education respondents place a major emphasis on technical training. The municipal league and association respondents do so as well, but to a lesser degree. On closer examination, it is obvious higher education respondents place more emphasis and weight on training concerned with planning and zoning law, the content of local land use plans, subdivision practices and site plan review, than do the municipal league and associational respondents.

A similar disconnect is revealed when Tables 4 and 5 are compared for the second cluster of training programs focusing on group dynamics such as decision making, meeting management, and public participation skills. The higher education respondents, by a wide margin, place a greater emphasis on this type of training.

A final point of interest from Tables 3 through 5 involves the degree to which training programs focus on visioning skills. Of the three respondent categories, the higher education cluster provides more training about the role of visioning in planning than do the other two respondent groups combined (57.1% vs. 56.4%).

What's Next?

Each respondent was asked to identify the person responsible for planning commissioner training in his/her organization, chapter, institution or association. In addition, respondents engaged in training citizen planners were asked to provide APA with copies of their training materials. Roughly half of the respondents complied with this request.

The next step in this study will be to create a special feature on the APA web site (www.planning.org) that will list all the training programs by state. Each program will also have the contact person for more information.

Finally, a lending reference library will be created in the APA Research Department. This repository of resources, including handouts, training manuals, and workbooks will be on loan to anyone interested in learning how to set up a training program. It is anticipated that the information will be shared with organizations, local governments, state APA chapters, and local planning commissions at no charge.

Michael Chandler is a Professor and Extension Specialist at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia. He conducts training programs for the Commonwealth of Virginia and for both chapter and national APA programs.