Featured February 9, 2026 New year, new era of government reform Back to Blog Proposed changes to Senior Executive Service training programs are a good start but broader reforms are needed Date February 19, 2026 Authors Paloma Jiménez Tags Government Effectiveness, Workforce Last week, the Partnership for Public Service submitted comments in response to a new proposed regulation from the Office of Personnel Management that aims to standardize elements of Senior Executive Service candidate development programs. To keep the conversation going on both this rule and the broader reforms needed to ensure our government has a strong cadre of leaders, we’ve pulled together this brief summary of the points we shared with OPM. Why do CDPs matter? The SES is a vital component of agency leadership, but for years agencies have failed to invest in the training stage of the leadership pipeline. Candidate development programs, or CDPs, are an underused pathway into SES roles and have long needed attention. CDPs can help bridge the gap, ensuring that well-prepared candidates are ready for the SES by helping them develop key leadership skills and streamlining the qualification process. But right now, just 13 agencies use them—and even then, they are used inconsistently. We support OPM’s move to improve these programs and increase their use but urge caution on certain aspects of the proposed rule. New rule boosts developmental programming and standardization The Partnership commends the proposed rule’s increased focus on coaching and rotational assignments within CDPs, both of which can improve program quality and help participants more successfully apply their training on the job. We also support steps toward standardization that make it easier for agencies to both run CDPs and tailor them for distinct missions and workforces. One example is requiring program evaluations to help ensure that CDPs are valuable for participants and prepare them to achieve results for their agencies. CDP requirements must balance program rigor and burden Because CDPs are optional for agencies and civil servants, they should not overburden either. It is a best practice to evaluate any training program, but metrics should be carefully chosen to avoid overburdening agency staff. To do this well, agencies need HR offices with measurement expertise and must work closely with performance and program evaluation teams to tie CDP outcomes to organizational impact. Additionally, we cautioned OPM on the proposed rule’s plan to shorten CDP program periods. A shorter CDP program period might stretch the capacity of CDP participants, who would be doing their regular job while also completing increased training hours in a shorter amount of time. This pressure could lead to overworked and underprepared graduates. New CDP selection procedures raise concerns We’re concerned that the proposed regulation suggests using executive assessments as part of the selection process for CDPs. That would be detrimental to the selection process. These and other psychometric or behavioral assessments are meant to assess a candidate’s growth and improvement over time, not evaluate candidates for selection. Instead, the Partnership recommends that OPM use assessments that evaluate candidates against the Executive Core Qualifications and potentially consider skills needed to meet each agency’s unique challenges. The CDP selection process should also factor in additional skills needed for public sector leadership, such as stewardship of public trust and commitment to public good. The next steps: Broader SES reforms and workforce planning Improving CDPs is an important goal toward building a stronger leadership pipeline, but further reforms are needed. Without effective workforce planning, agencies will continue to graduate individuals from CDPs who lack skills that correspond to the agency’s future needs—that is, agencies will be building a bench but filling it with players from a different sport. Better workforce planning would ensure that agencies maintain an adequate bench of capable SES candidates and do not waste resources on preparing leaders who possess skills that are misaligned with agency needs. This rule and its focus on CDPs speak to the broader issue of building a strong leadership pipeline and supporting federal leaders—something the Partnership has been at the forefront of for years (Check out our Public Service Leadership Model, for example!) Through our Government for a New Era initiative, we’ll continue driving forward-looking solutions focused on leadership and other foundational government management issues. Learn more about the Government for a New Era initiative, our effort to develop reforms for a more effective, responsive and accountable government.
